Download:
pdf |
pdfPACIFIC COAST GROUNDFISH
FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN
FOR THE CALIFORNIA, OREGON, AND
WASHINGTON GROUNDFISH FISHERY
December 2023
PACIFIC FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL
7700 NE AMBASSADOR PLACE, SUITE 101
PORTLAND, OR 97220
(503) 820-2280
(866) 806-7204
WWW.PCOUNCIL.ORG
This document is published by the Pacific Fishery Management Council; current
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Award Number
NA15NMF4410016.
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
ii
December 2023
Changes to the FMP since Amendment 4 (July 1993)
Current Chapters
Previous Chapters
(July 1993 Version)
Summary of
Amendment Changes
Chapter 1 Introduction
Chapter 1 Introduction
Updated by Amendment 18
Chapter 2 Goals and Objectives
Chapter 2 Goals and Objectives
Amendments and additions, no
substantial change in organization.
(Amendments 12, 13, 16-1, 17, 18, 24,
and 30.)
Chapter 3 Areas and Stocks
Involved
Chapter 3 Areas and Stocks
Involved
Amendments and additions, no
substantial change in organization.
(Amendment 16-1.) Specification of
Ecosystem Component (EC) species
added under Amendment 24. EC
species shared by all four West Coast
FMPs added under Amendment 25.
Re-designated big skate as an actively
managed species under Amendment 27.
Designated shortbelly rockfish as an
EC species under Amendment 29.
Stocks of black, canary, copper,
quillback, squarespot, vermilion,
vermilion/sunset rockfishes; Dover,
petrale, and rex soles; lingcod, Pacific
spiny dogfish, sablefish, and shortspine
thornyhead were defined under
Amendment 31.
Chapter 4 Optimum Yield
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
Chapter 4 Optimum Yield
iii
Substantially changed and expanded by
Amendment 16-1, which moved and
revised material on determining OFL,
OY, precautionary thresholds, and
rebuilding overfished species that was
in Chapter 5 into this chapter.
Amendments 16-2 and 16-3 add
rebuilding plan summaries to section
4.5.4. Amendment 16-4 revises
rebuilding plans in section 4.5.4.
Substantially changed and expanded by
Amendment 23, which provided
material on specifying OFLs, redefined
ABCs, ACLs, and ACTs.
Amendment 30 amendment to specify
2,000 mt threshold for shortbelly
rockfish to trigger Council review of
fishery
December 2023
Current Chapters
Previous Chapters
(July 1993 Version)
Summary of
Amendment Changes
Chapter 5 Specification and
Apportionment of Harvest
Levels
Chapter 5 Specification and
Apportionment of Harvest
Levels
Substantially changed by Amendment
16-1, which moved material to Chapter
4, as noted above. Discussion of DAH,
DAP, JVP, and TALFF deleted. (Also
Amendments 12, 13, 17, and 18.)
Substantially changed by Amendment
23, which incorporated new National
Standard 1 guidelines and mandates of
the 2006 reauthorization of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act. Default
harvest control rule process added
under Amendment 24.
Chapter 6 Management
Measures
Chapter 6 Management
Measures
Substantially reorganized and changed
by Amendment 18 and 19. (Also
Amendments 10, 11, 13, 16-1, 17, 20,
21, 21-1, 21-2, 21-3, 21-4, 23, 24, 25,
27, 28, 29, and 30.)
Chapter 6 changed to reflect
Amendment 28: 1) Elimination of the
trawl RCA off Oregon and California,
2) changed configuration of EFH
closed areas, and 3) Closure to bottom
contact fishing deeper than 3500m.
Formal allocations for lingcod south of
40°10’ N lat., Minor Slope Rockfish
south of 40°10’ N lat., petrale sole, and
widow rockfish removed from the FMP
under Amendment 29. Amendment 30
amended language to Seasons (6.8.1),
Rockfish Conservation Areas (6.8.2),
and language describing the function
and use of Block Area Closures (6.8.3).
Amendment 32 removed CCAs for
non-trawl and recreational fishing and
added new groundfish exclusion areas
(6.8.10).
Chapter 7 Experimental
Fisheries
Renumbered Chapter 8
Chapter 8 Scientific Research
Renumbered Chapter 9
Chapter 7 Essential Fish Habitat
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
New Chapter created by Amendment
19 from substantially revised material
previously in Chapter 6.
Updated to reflect new EFH
conservation area configuration under
Amendment 28, and to remove
review/revision process from FMP text.
Amendment 32 added new non-trawl
bottom contact groundfish and nontribal directed commercial halibut
EFHCAs.
iv
December 2023
Current Chapters
Previous Chapters
(July 1993 Version)
Summary of
Amendment Changes
Chapter 8 Experimental
Fisheries
Renumbered and revised by
Amendment 18.
Chapter 9 Scientific Research
Renumbered, no other changes.
Chapter 10 Procedures for
Reviewing State Regulations
Chapter 11 Groundfish Limited
Entry
Chapter 9 Restrictions on Other
Fisheries
Deleted with material incorporated into
Chapter 6.
Chapter 10 Procedures for
Reviewing State Regulations
Background section revised by
Amendment 18.
Chapter 11 Appendices
Published under separate cover.
Chapter 12 Management
Measures that Continue in
Effect with Implementation of
Amendment 4
Deleted with material incorporated into
Chapter 6.
Chapter 13 References
Moved to an unnumbered section at the
end of the document.
Chapter 14 Groundfish Limited
Entry
Renumbered; Amendment 15
modification to section 11.2.12, current
section 11.5 inserted as new. Revisions
under Amendment 20 including the
removal of Amendment 15 text in
section 11.2.12. Changed and expanded
by Amendment 21.
References
Previously Chapter 13
Guide to Appendices
Previously Chapter 11 contained
descriptive information brought
forward from the original FMP. This
material moved to Appendix A. Three
new appendices (B-D) were added by
Amendment 19. Appendix E by
Amendment 20. Appendix F by
Amendment 16 rebuilding plans.
Amendment 28 re-organized some
Appendices. Appendices B.2, B.3, and
B.4 were merged to provide life
history, habitat information, and
information on habitat suitability
modeling in one appendix. Appendix
B.5 was eliminated, replaced by the
Council’s Research and Data Needs
Document, which incorporates research
needs identified during the Amendment
28 process. Appendix C Part 1 was
archived and is available on the
Council’s website. Appendix C Part 2
was updated with recent information
and renamed Part 1.
A note on other annotations: Amended parts of the FMP subsequent to Amendment 4, which substantially
revised the original FMP, are denoted at the end of chapters or sections by amendment number.
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
v
December 2023
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................1
1.1
History of the Fishery Management Plan ................................................................................ 1
1.2
How This Document is Organized ........................................................................................... 5
CHAPTER 2
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ...............................................................................7
2.1
Goals and Objectives for Managing the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery ........................... 7
2.2
Operational Definition of Terms .............................................................................................. 9
CHAPTER 3
AREAS AND STOCKS INVOLVED..................................................................15
3.1
Species Managed by this Fishery Management Plan ............................................................ 15
3.2
Stocks Managed under this Fishery Management Plan ......................................................... 17
3.3
Ecosystem Component Species.............................................................................................. 18
CHAPTER 4
PREVENTING OVERFISHING AND ACHIEVING OPTIMUM YIELD .............21
4.1
National Standard 1 Guidelines.............................................................................................. 21
4.2
Species Categories .................................................................................................................. 21
4.3
Determination of MSY, or MSY Proxy, and BMSY ................................................................ 22
Historical Development of Council Proxies for FMSY and BMSY ........................................... 23
4.4
Determination of OFL and ABC ............................................................................................ 24
Stocks with OFL and ABC Set by Data-Rich Quantitative Assessments, Category 1
25
Stocks with OFL and ABC Set by Data-Moderate Quantitative Assessment,
Category 2............................................................................................................................................. 26
Stocks with OFL and ABC Values Set by Data-Poor Assessment, Category 3 ................... 26
Ecosystem Component Stocks Without OFL Values ............................................................ 27
4.5
Precautionary Thresholds and Overfishing Status Determination Criteria ........................... 28
Determination of Precautionary Thresholds .......................................................................... 28
Determination of Overfishing Threshold ............................................................................... 28
Determination of Overfished/Rebuilding Thresholds ........................................................... 29
4.6
Ending Overfishing and Rebuilding....................................................................................... 29
Default Precautionary and Interim Rebuilding ACL Calculation ......................................... 29
Procedures for Calculating Rebuilding Parameters ............................................................... 31
Calculating Rebuilding Probabilities ............................................................................. 32
Stock Rebuilding Plans........................................................................................................... 33
Goals and Objectives of Rebuilding Plans .................................................................... 33
Contents of Rebuilding Plans......................................................................................... 34
Process for Development and Approval of Rebuilding Plans ...................................... 35
Updating Key Rebuilding Parameters ........................................................................... 36
Implementation of Actions Required Under the Rebuilding Plan ................................ 36
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
vi
December 2023
Periodic Review of Rebuilding Plans ............................................................................ 37
Precedence of a Recovery Plan or “No Jeopardy” Standard Issued Pursuant to
the Endangered Species Act .......................................................................................................... 37
4.7
Determination of OY, ACL, and ACT ................................................................................... 38
Determination of Numerical ACLs If Stock Assessment Information Is Available
from a Data-Rich Assessment (Category 1) ........................................................................................ 40
Determination of a Numerical ACL If OFL Is Based on a Data-Moderate
Quantitative Assessment (Category 2) ................................................................................................ 41
Determination of a Numerical ACL If OFL Is Based on a Data-Poor Assessment
(Category 3) .......................................................................................................................................... 42
CHAPTER 5
5.1
PERIODIC SPECIFICATION AND APPORTIONMENT OF HARVEST
LEVELS ............................................................................................................45
General Overview of the Harvest Specifications and Management Process ........................ 45
5.2
SAFE Document/Biennial Specifications and Management Measures NEPA
Document.............................................................................................................................................. 47
5.3
Authorization and Accounting for Fish Taken as Compensation for Authorized
Scientific Research Activities. ............................................................................................................. 48
5.4
Biennial Implementation Procedures for Specifications and Management Measures ......... 49
5.5
Inseason Procedures for Establishing or Adjusting Specifications ....................................... 50
Inseason Adjustments to OFLs, ABCs, and ACLs ................................................................ 50
Inseason Establishment and Adjustment of ACLs, OYs, HGs, and Quotas ......................... 50
CHAPTER 6
MANAGEMENT MEASURES ..........................................................................51
6.1
Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 51
Overview of Management Measures for West Coast Groundfish Fisheries......................... 51
6.2
General Procedures for Establishing and Adjusting Management Measures ....................... 52
Routine Management Measures Overview ............................................................................ 55
Routine Management Measures: ................................................................................... 56
Resource Conservation Issues—The Points of Concern Framework ................................... 58
Non-biological Issues—The Socioeconomic Framework ..................................................... 59
The Habitat Conservation Framework ................................................................................... 61
Indian Treaty Rights ............................................................................................................... 62
6.3
Allocation ................................................................................................................................ 62
Allocation Framework ............................................................................................................ 62
Formal Allocations ................................................................................................................. 63
Sector Allocations of Sablefish North of 36⁰ N latitude ............................................... 63
Sector allocations of Pacific Whiting ............................................................................ 63
Limited Entry Trawl Allocations for Amendment 21 and 29 Stocks and Stock
Complexes ..................................................................................................................................... 64
6.4
Standardized Total Catch Reporting and Compliance Monitoring Program ........................ 67
Total Catch Reporting Methodology ..................................................................................... 68
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
vii
December 2023
Monitoring Total Catch At Sea – Observer and Electronic Monitoring
Programs ........................................................................................................................................ 68
Commercial Fisheries..................................................................................................... 69
Recreational Fisheries .................................................................................................... 70
6.4.2 Vessel Compliance Monitoring and Reporting Requirements .............................................. 72
6.5
Bycatch Mitigation Program .................................................................................................. 73
Bycatch of Groundfish Species in Groundfish Fisheries....................................................... 73
Bycatch and Incidental Take of Non-Groundfish Species in Groundfish Fisheries ............. 74
Endangered Species Act Species ................................................................................... 75
Marine Mammal Protection Act Species....................................................................... 75
Migratory Bird Treaty Act Species................................................................................ 75
Shared Ecosystem Component Species ......................................................................... 75
Measures to Reduce Bycatch and Bycatch Mortality ............................................................ 76
Full Retention Programs ................................................................................................ 76
Sector-specific and Vessel-specific Total Catch Limit Programs ................................ 77
Catch Allocation to, or Gear Flexibility For, Gear Types with Lower Bycatch
Rates 79
Recreational Catch and Release Management .............................................................. 79
6.6
Gear Definitions and Restrictions .......................................................................................... 80
Commercial Fisheries ............................................................................................................. 80
Prohibitions..................................................................................................................... 80
Trawl Gear ...................................................................................................................... 80
Non-trawl Gear ............................................................................................................... 82
Recreational Fisheries............................................................................................................. 82
Bottom-contact Gear............................................................................................................... 82
6.7
Catch Restrictions ................................................................................................................... 83
All Fisheries ............................................................................................................................ 83
Commercial Fisheries ............................................................................................................. 84
Recreational Fisheries............................................................................................................. 85
6.8
6.8.2
6.8.3
6.8.4
6.8.5
6.8.6
6.8.7
6.8.8
Time/Area Closures ................................................................................................................ 85
Seasons .................................................................................................................................... 86
Rockfish Conservation Areas ................................................................................................. 86
Block Area Closures ............................................................................................................... 87
Groundfish Fishing Areas....................................................................................................... 87
Long-term Bycatch Mitigation Closed Areas ........................................................................ 87
Essential Fish Habitat Conservation Areas ............................................................................ 88
Bottom Trawl Footprint Closure ............................................................................................ 91
Marine Protected Areas .......................................................................................................... 91
Deep Water Bottom Contact Gear Closure............................................................................ 92
Groundfish Exclusion Areas................................................................................................... 92
6.9
Measures to Control Fishing Capacity, Including Permits and Licenses.............................. 92
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
viii
December 2023
General Provisions For Permits.............................................................................................. 93
Commercial Fisheries Permits ....................................................................................... 93
Recreational Fisheries Permits....................................................................................... 94
Processor Permits ........................................................................................................... 94
Sector Endorsements .............................................................................................................. 94
Fishery Rationalization ........................................................................................................... 94
The Trawl Rationalization Programs............................................................................. 94
Rationalization of Other Fishery Sectors....................................................................... 95
Facilitating Public-Private Partnerships that Mitigate EFH Impacts and May Reduce
Capacity ................................................................................................................................................ 95
Capacity Reduction Data Collection ...................................................................................... 95
6.10
Fishery Enforcement and Vessel Safety ................................................................................ 95
Managing Enforcement Risks ................................................................................................ 96
Vessel Safety........................................................................................................................... 97
Vessel and Gear Identification ............................................................................................... 97
Prohibitions and Penalties ...................................................................................................... 98
CHAPTER 7
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT ............................................................................99
7.1
How This FMP Addresses Provisions in the Magnuson-Stevens Act Relating to
Essential Fish Habitat ........................................................................................................................... 99
7.2
Description and Identification of Essential Fish Habitat for Groundfish............................ 100
Use of Habitat Suitability Probability to Identify EFH ....................................................... 103
7.3
Habitat Areas of Particular Concern .................................................................................... 104
Designated HAPC................................................................................................................. 105
Estuaries ....................................................................................................................... 105
Canopy Kelp ................................................................................................................. 105
Seagrass ........................................................................................................................ 106
Rocky Reefs ................................................................................................................. 107
Areas of Interest ........................................................................................................... 107
Process for Modifying Existing or Designating New HAPCs ............................................ 108
7.4
Management Measures to Minimize Adverse Impacts on Essential Fish Habitat from
Fishing 110
7.5
EFH Coordination, Consultation, and Recommendations .................................................. 111
7.6
Review and Revision of Essential Fish Habitat Provisions ................................................. 111
7.7
Habitat-related Research and Monitoring ............................................................................ 112
CHAPTER 8
EXPERIMENTAL FISHERIES........................................................................113
CHAPTER 9
SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH ..............................................................................117
CHAPTER 10
PROCEDURE FOR REVIEWING STATE REGULATIONS...........................119
CHAPTER 11
GROUNDFISH LIMITED ENTRY ...................................................................121
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
ix
December 2023
Federal LE Permits Required Only for Gears Fishing on the Limited Access Quota ........ 123
GUIDE TO APPENDICES ............................................................................................................147
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3-1. Common and scientific names of species actively managed in this FMP. ............................... 15
Table 3-2. Groundfish stocks within the fishery management unit (FMU) of the Pacific Coast Groundfish
FMP and their boundaries, as amended through Amendment 31....................................................... 18
Table 3-3. Groundfish species designated as Ecosystem Component Species. ......................................... 19
Table 3-4. Common and scientific names of EC species shared between all four of the Council’s FMPs. 19
Table 6-1. Allocation percentages for limited entry trawl and non-trawl sectors specified for FMP
groundfish stocks and stock complexes under Amendments 21 and 29 (most percentages based on
average 2003-2005 total catches by sector)........................................................................................ 64
Table 6-2. Shoreside trawl sector catch percentages during 1995-2005 used to apportion the initial
allocation of Amendment 21 species to LE trawl sectors delivering groundfish to shoreside processing
plants (i.e., shoreside whiting and shoreside non-whiting). ............................................................... 65
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 3-1. International North Pacific Fisheries Commission (INPFC) statistical areas in the U.S. exclusive
economic zone seaward of Washington, Oregon, and California. ..................................................... 20
Figure 4-1. Illustration of the default “40-10” ACL rule compared to OFL and ABC as adopted under
Amendment 23. This rule applies to all assessed non-flatfish species. ............................................. 30
Figure 4-2. Illustration of the default “25-5” ACL rule compared to OFL and ABC as adopted under
Amendment 16-5. This rule only applies to assessed flatfish species. .............................................. 30
Figure 6-1. Fixed intersector allocations of sablefish north of 36° N latitude. .......................................... 63
Figure 7-1. Groundfish essential fish habitat on the Pacific West Coast. ................................................. 102
Figure 7-2. Groundfish habitat areas of particular concern on the Pacific West Coast. .......................... 109
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
x
December 2023
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
ABC
ACL
ACT
AM(s)
BAC
BC EFHCA
BT EFHCA
CCA
CDFG
CPUE
CRCZ
CRFS
CV
DAH
DAP
DSCS
EC
EEZ
EFH
EFHCA
EFP
EIS
ESA
FMP
FMU
GAP
GCA
GEA
GFA
GIS
GMT
HAPC
HCR
HG
HSP
HUD
IFQ
IFQ
INPFC
JV
JVP
KRCZ
LE
Magnuson-Stevens Act
MARPOL
MBTA
MFMT
MHHW
MLR
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
Acceptable biological catch
Annual catch limit
Annual catch target
Accountability measure(s)
Block Area Closure
Bottom contact essential fish habitat conservation area
Bottom trawl essential fish habitat conservation area
Cowcod Conservation Area
California Department of Fish and Game
Catch per unit of effort
Columbia River Conservation Zone
California Recreational Fisheries Survey
Catcher vessel
Domestic annual harvest
Domestic annual processing
Deep sea coral and sponge
Ecosystem component
Exclusive economic zone
Essential fish habitat
Essential fish habitat conservation area
Exempted fishing permit
Environmental Impact Statement
Endangered Species Act
Fishery management plan
Fishery management unit
Groundfish Advisory Subpanel
Groundfish Conservation Area
Groundfish Exclusion Areas
Groundfish fishing area
Geographic information system
Groundfish Management Team
Habitat Area of Particular Concern
Harvest control rule
Harvest guideline
Habitat suitability probability
Habitat Use Database
Individual fishing quota
Individual fishing quota
International North Pacific Fisheries Commission
Joint-venture
Joint-venture processing
Klamath River Conservation Zone
Limited entry
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships
Migratory Bird Treaty Act
Maximum fishing mortality threshold
Mean higher high water level
Minimum landing requirement
xi
December 2023
MMPA
MPA
MRFSS
MSST
MSY
NEPA
NMFS
ODFW
OFL
ORBS
OSP
OY
PacFIN
POP
PRA
PSMFC
RCA
RecFIN
SAFE
SDC
SEBS
Secretary
SFA
SPR
SSC
STT
U&A
USFWS
VMS
YRCA
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
Marine Mammal Protection Act
Marine protected area
Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistical Survey
Minimum stock size threshold
Maximum sustainable yield
National Environmental Policy Act
National Marine Fisheries Service
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
Overfishing limit
Ocean Recreational Boat Survey (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife)
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Ocean Sampling Program
optimum yield
Pacific Fishery Information Network
Pacific ocean perch
Paperwork Reduction Act
Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission
Rockfish Conservation Area
Recreational Fisheries Information Network
Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation
Status determination criteria
Shore and Estuary Boat Survey (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife)
U.S. Secretary of Commerce
Sustainable Fisheries Act
Spawning biomass per recruit
Scientific and Statistical Committee
Salmon Technical Team
Usual and Accustomed Area (Tribal)
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Vessel monitoring system
Yelloweye Rockfish Conservation Area
xii
December 2023
CHAPTER 1
1.1
INTRODUCTION
History of the Fishery Management Plan
The Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP) was approved by the U.S. Secretary of
Commerce (Secretary) on January 4, 1982 and implemented on October 5, 1982. Prior to implementation
of the FMP, management of domestic groundfish fisheries was under the jurisdiction of the states of
Washington, Oregon, and California. State regulations have been in effect on the domestic fishery for more
than 100 years, with each state acting independently in both management and enforcement. Furthermore,
many fisheries overlapped state boundaries and participants often operated in more than one state.
Management and a lack of uniformity of regulations had become a difficult problem, which stimulated the
formation of the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission (PSMFC) in 1947. PSMFC had no regulatory
power but acted as a coordinating entity with authority to submit specific recommendations to states for
their adoption. The 1977 Fishery Conservation and Management Act (later amended and renamed the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act or Magnuson-Stevens Act) established
eight regional fishery management Councils, including the Pacific Council. Between 1977 and the
implementation of the groundfish FMP in 1982, state agencies worked with the Council to address
conservation issues. Specifically, in 1981, managers proposed a rebuilding program for Pacific ocean
perch. To implement this program, the states of Oregon and Washington established landing limits for
Pacific ocean perch in the Vancouver and Columbia management areas.
Management of foreign fishing operations began in February 1967 when the U.S. and U.S.S.R. signed the
first bilateral fishery agreement affecting trawl fisheries off Washington, Oregon, and California. The U.S.
later signed bilateral agreements with Japan and Poland for fishing off the U.S. West Coast. Each of these
agreements was renegotiated to reduce the impact of foreign fishing on important West Coast stocks,
primarily rockfish, Pacific whiting, and sablefish. When the U.S. extended its jurisdiction to 200 miles
(upon signing the Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976), the National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS) developed and the Secretary implemented the preliminary management plan for the
foreign trawl fishery off the Pacific Coast. From 1977 to 1982, the foreign fishery was managed under that
plan. Many of these regulations were incorporated into the FMP, which provided for continued
management of the foreign fishery.
Joint-venture fishing, where domestic vessels caught the fish to be processed aboard foreign vessels, began
in 1979 and by 1989 had entirely supplanted directed foreign fishing. These joint ventures primarily
targeted Pacific whiting. Joint-venture fisheries were then rapidly replaced by wholly domestic processing;
by 1991 foreign participation had ended and U.S.-flagged motherships (MS), catcher-processors, and shorebased vessels had taken over the Pacific whiting fishery. Since then U.S. fishing vessels and seafood
processors have fully utilized Pacific Coast fishery resources. Although the Council may entertain
applications for foreign or joint venture fishing or processing at any time, provisions for these activities
have been removed from the FMP. Re-establishing such opportunities would require another FMP
amendment.
Since it was first implemented in 1982, the Council has amended the Groundfish FMP 33 times in response
to changes in the fishery, reauthorizations of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and litigation that invalidated
provisions incorporated by earlier amendments. During the first 10 years of plan implementation, up to
1992, the Secretary approved six amendments. Amendment 4, approved in 1990, was the most significant
early amendment; in addition to a comprehensive update and reorganization of the FMP, it established
additional framework procedures for establishing and modifying management measures. Another
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
1
December 2023
important change was implemented in 1992 with Amendment 6, which established a license limitation
(limited entry) program intended to address overcapitalization by restricting further participation in
groundfish trawl, longline, and trap fisheries. Amendments 7 (bycatch of non-groundfish species) and 8
(IFQ for fixed gear sablefish) were not approved by the Council.
The next decade, through 2002, saw the approval of another seven amendments. Amendment 9 modified
the limited entry (LE) program by establishing a sablefish endorsement for longline and pot permits.
Amendments 11, 12, and 13 were responses to changes in the Magnuson-Stevens Act due to the 1996
Sustainable Fisheries Act. These changes required FMPs to identify essential fish habitat (EFH), more
actively reduce bycatch and bycatch mortality, and strengthen conservation measures to both prevent fish
stocks from becoming overfished and promote rebuilding of any stocks that had become overfished.
Amendment 14, implemented in 2001, built on Amendment 9 to further refine the LE permit system for the
economically important fixed gear sablefish fishery. It allowed a vessel owner to “stack” up to three LE
permits on one vessel along with associated sablefish catch limits. This, in combinations with a concurrent
action to extend the season length, in effect established a limited tradable quota system for participants in
the primary sablefish fishery.
Most of the amendments adopted since 2001 deal with legal challenges to the three Sustainable Fisheries
Act of 1996 (SFA)-related amendments mentioned above, which were remanded in part by the Federal
Court. These have required new amendments dealing with overfishing, bycatch monitoring and mitigation,
and EFH. In relation to the first of these three issues, the Magnuson-Stevens Act now requires FMPs to
identify thresholds for both the fishing mortality rate constituting overfishing and the stock size below
which a stock is considered overfished. Once the Secretary determines a stock is overfished, the Council
must develop and implement a plan to rebuild it to a healthy level. The Court found that the rebuilding
plan framework adopted by Amendment 12 did not comply with the Magnuson-Stevens Act. In response,
Amendments 16-1, 16-2, 16-3, 16-4, and 16-5 (also known as Secretarial Amendment 1) established the
current regime for managing these overfished species. Amendment 16-1, approved in 2003, incorporated
guidelines for developing and adopting rebuilding plans and substantially revised Chapters 4 and 5.
Amendments 16-2 and 16-3, approved in 2004, incorporated key elements of rebuilding plans into Section
4.5.4. In 2005, a Court of Appeals ruling refined court interpretation of the Magnuson-Stevens Act
rebuilding period requirements. Amendment 16-4, partially approved in 2006, revised the FMP to specify
that rebuilding periods will be as short as possible, taking into account the status and biology of the stocks,
the needs of fishing communities, and interactions of overfished stocks with the marine ecosystem. As a
result of this ruling, Amendment 16-4 also revised the rebuilding periods for darkblotched rockfish, Pacific
ocean perch, canary rockfish, bocaccio, cowcod, widow rockfish, and yelloweye rockfish. Amendment 165 established a petrale sole rebuilding plan and established new proxy reference points for managing flatfish
species.
Amendment 15 was initiated in 1999 in response to provisions in the American Fisheries Act intended to
shield West Coast fisheries from certain effects of that legislation. Because of competing workload and no
threatened imminent harm, the Council tabled action on Amendment 15 in 2001. Work on the amendment
was re-initiated in 2007 in response to changes in the Pacific whiting fishery. Its purpose was to address
conservation and socioeconomic issues in the shoreside, catcher/processor, and MS sectors of the Pacific
whiting fishery by requiring vessels to qualify for an additional license to participate in a given sector,
based on their historical participation. It was an interim measure, which sunsetted with trawl rationalization
program (Amendment 20) implementation.
Amendment 17 modified the periodic process the Council uses to establish and modify harvest
specifications and management measures for the groundfish fishery. Although not an SFA-related issue,
this change did solve a procedural problem raised in litigation. The Council now establishes specifications
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
2
December 2023
and management measures every two years, allowing more time for them to be developed during the
Council’s public meetings.
Amendment 18, approved in 2006, addresses a remand of elements in Amendment 11 related to bycatch
monitoring and mitigation. It incorporates a description of the Council’s bycatch-related policies and
programs into Chapter 6. It also effected a substantial reorganization and update of the FMP, so that it
better reflects the Council’s and NMFS’s evolving framework approach to management. Under this
framework, the Council may recommend a range of broadly defined management measures for NMFS to
implement. In addition to the range of measures, this FMP specifies the procedures the Council and NMFS
must follow to establish and modify these measures. When first implemented, the FMP specified a
relatively narrow range of measures, which were difficult to modify in response to changes in the fishery.
The current framework allows the Council to effectively respond when faced with the dynamic challenges
posed by the current groundfish fishery.
Amendment 19, also approved in 2006, revises the definition of groundfish EFH, identified habitat areas
of particular concern (HAPCs), and describes management measures intended to mitigate the adverse
effects of fishing on EFH. This amendment supplants the definition of EFH added to the FMP by
Amendment 11.
Amendment 20 was approved in 2010 and establishes the groundfish trawl rationalization program. Under
this program, groundfish LE trawl vessels making shoreside deliveries are managed with individual fishing
quotas. Motherships and associated catcher-vessels in the at-sea Pacific whiting sector are managed under
a system of regulated cooperatives. Pacific whiting catcher-processors fish within a voluntary cooperative;
the amendment establishes provisions to strengthen this cooperative. As noted above, Amendment 20
supersedes provisions in Amendment 15; corresponding text was replaced.
Amendment 21 was approved in 2010 and establishes long-term allocations between the trawl and nontrawl sectors of the groundfish fishery; establishes a short-term allocational split between the shoreside
whiting and non-whiting fishery, necessary for implementation of the individual fishing quota (IFQ)
program (established through Amendment 20); establishes darkblotched rockfish, Pacific ocean perch and
widow rockfish allocations among the at-sea trawl and shoreside trawl sectors (later removed by
Amendment 21-4); identifies the need for initial set-asides for the at-sea trawl sectors; and establishes a
Pacific halibut bycatch allowance to be provided to the trawl fishery in the form of individual bycatch quota
(established through Amendment 20).
Amendment 21-1 was approved in 2011. It clarified that the Amendment 21 allocation percentages
supersede the limited entry/open access allocations for certain groundfish species and revised the amount
of bycatch quota pounds that will be issued for the shoreside trawl fishery to cover Pacific halibut mortality
to better match the objective specified in Amendment 21.
Amendment 21-2 was approved in 2012. It revised catch accounting provisions for clarity, reinstated
provisions that were inadvertently deleted with Amendment 21, and revised annual catch limit set-aside
provisions to allow for the routine reallocation of unused harvest set-asides as part of any considered
inseason fishery adjustment.
Amendment 21-3 was approved in 2017. It changed the at-sea whiting sectors’ allocations of darkblotched
rockfish and POP from total catch limits to set-asides, while maintaining the allocation formulas in the
Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for these two stocks to determine the set-aside amounts.
Amendment 21-4 was approved in 2018. It changed the at-sea whiting sectors’ allocations of canary
rockfish and widow rockfish from total catch limits to set-asides and removed from the FMP the formulas
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
3
December 2023
for determining the set-aside amounts for darkblotched rockfish, POP, and widow rockfish going to the atsea sectors.
Amendment 22 (an open access fishery registration program) was not approved by the Council.
Amendment 23 was approved in 2010 to incorporate new National Standard 1 guidelines to prevent
overfishing. These new National Standard 1 guidelines were developed in response to the MagnusonStevens Act re-authorization of 2006 which mandated an end to overfishing.
Amendment 24 was approved in February 2015 to describe the use of default harvest control rules in the
biennial harvest specifications process and to clarify the descriptions of new and routine management
measures that may be implemented during the biennial process. Amendment 24 also designated some
species as Ecosystem Component Species and incorporated a variety of technical changes to the FMP.
Amendment 25 was approved in 2015 and added a suite of lower trophic level species to the FMP’s list of
ecosystem component (EC) species. Consistent with the objectives of the Council’s FMPs and its Fishery
Ecosystem Plan, Amendment 25 prohibits future development of directed commercial fisheries for the suite
of EC species shared between all four FMPs until and unless the Council has had an adequate opportunity
to both assess the scientific information relating to any proposed directed fishery and consider potential
impacts to existing fisheries, fishing communities, and the greater marine ecosystem.
Amendment 26 (removing blackgill rockfish from the southern Slope Rockfish complex and amending the
trawl/non-trawl allocations of blackgill rockfish and the other species in the complex) was not approved by
the Council.
Amendment 27 reclassified big skate from an ecosystem component species to “in the fishery,” listed deacon
rockfish in Table 3-1, and revised Chapter 5.5 to describe a new inseason process in California. The new
inseason process for California fisheries occurs outside of a Council meeting and allows NMFS to take action
based upon attainment or projected attainment of Federal harvest limits of black rockfish (commercial and
recreational), canary rockfish (recreational), and yelloweye rockfish (recreational). Additionally, this
amendment included updates to the FMP to clarify matters from Amendment 23 and acknowledge the
successful rebuilding of canary rockfish and petrale sole.
Amendment 28 modified the configuration of EFH Conservation Areas (EFHCAs) that are closed to
groundfish bottom trawl fishing in order to protect EFH, closed waters deeper than 3,500 meters to bottom
contact fishing gear, opened the trawl RCA to bottom trawl fishing off Oregon and California, and created a
framework to consider and implement more flexible area closures with block area closures.
Amendment 29 designated shortbelly rockfish as an ecosystem component species and removed the formal
allocations of lingcod south of 40°10’ N lat., petrale sole, widow rockfish, and Minor Slope Rockfish south
of 40°10’ N lat. from the FMP.
Amendment 30 developed a 2,000 mt shortbelly rockfish catch threshold that, when exceeded or projected
to be exceeded, would trigger Council review of the fishery, corrections to the block area closure definition,
clarification of Rockfish Conservation Areas, and change of the sablefish season specification language.
Amendment 31 defined and delineated stocks for black, canary, copper, quillback, squarespot, vermilion,
vermilion/sunset rockfishes; Dover, petrale, and rex soles; lingcod, Pacific spiny dogfish, sablefish, and
shortspine thornyhead.
Amendment 32 removed the CCAs for commercial non-trawl and recreational fishing, authorized the use
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
4
December 2023
of BACs for non-trawl gear, and added new fishery closures, including groundfish exclusion areas (GEAs,
6.8.10) and new non-trawl bottom contact groundfish and non-tribal directed halibut EFHCAs.
1.2
How This Document is Organized
The groundfish FMP is organized into 11 chapters
•
Chapter 1 (this chapter) describes the development of the FMP and how it is organized.
•
Chapter 2 describes the goals and objectives of the plan and defines key terms and concepts.
•
Chapter 3 specifies the geographic area covered by this plan and lists the plan’s Fishery
Management Unit (FMU) species and Ecosystem Component (EC) species, including those EC
species shared between all four of the Council’s FMPs.
•
Chapter 4 describes how the Council determines harvest levels. These harvest limits are related to
the maximum sustainable yield (MSY) and overfishing limit (OFL) for FMU species.
Precautionary reductions from these thresholds may be applied, depending on the management
status of a given stock. If, according to these thresholds, a stock is determined to be overfished,
the Council must recommend measures to end overfishing and develop a rebuilding plan, as
specified in this chapter. Based on the thresholds, criteria, and procedures described in this chapter,
the Council specifies an annual catch limit (ACL), or harvest limit, for managed stocks or stock
complexes.
•
Chapter 5 describes how the Council periodically specifies harvest levels and the management
measures needed to prevent catches from exceeding those levels. Currently, the Council develops
these specifications over the course of three meetings preceding the start of a two-year management
period. This chapter also describes how the stock assessment/fishery evaluation (SAFE) document,
which provides information important to management, is developed.
•
Chapter 6 describes the management measures used by the Council to meet the objectives of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act and this FMP. As noted above, this FMP is a framework plan; therefore,
the range of management measures is described in general terms while the processes necessary to
establish or modify different types of management measures are detailed. Included in the
description of management measures is the Council’s program for monitoring total catch (which
includes bycatch) and minimizing bycatch.
•
Chapter 7 identifies EFH for groundfish FMU species and the types of measures that may be used
to mitigate adverse impacts to EFH from fishing.
•
Chapter 8 describes procedures followed by the Council to evaluate and recommend issuing
exempted fishing permits (EFPs). Permitted vessels are authorized, for limited experimental
purposes, to harvest groundfish by means or in amounts that would otherwise be prohibited by this
FMP and its implementing regulations. These permits allow experimentation in support of FMP
goals and objectives. EFPs have been used, for example, to test gear types that result in less
bycatch.
•
Chapter 9 provides criteria for determining what activities involving groundfish would qualify as
scientific research and could therefore qualify for special treatment under the management
program.
•
Chapter 10 describes the procedures used to review state regulations in order to ensure that they
are consistent with this FMP and its implementing regulations.
•
Chapter 11 describes the groundfish LE program.
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
5
December 2023
•
•
Appendix A contains descriptions of the biological, economic, social, and regulatory characteristics
of the groundfish fishery.
Appendix B contains detailed information on groundfish EFH, life history descriptions, Habitat
Use Database Description, and Habitat Suitability Probability information.
•
Appendix C describes the effects of fishing on groundfish EFH.
•
Appendix D describes the effects of activities other than fishing on groundfish EFH.
•
Appendix E contains a detailed description of the trawl rationalization program (see Section
6.9.3.1).
Appendix F contains a description of overfished species rebuilding plans.
•
The appendices contain supporting information for the management program. Because these appendices
do not describe the management framework or Council groundfish management policies and procedures,
and only supplement the required and discretionary provisions of the FMP described in §303 of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act, they may be periodically updated without being subjected to the Secretarial review
and approval process described in §304(a) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. These appendices are published
under separate cover.
[Amended: 11, 18, 19, 16-2, 16-3, 16-4, 16-5, 15, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25]
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
6
December 2023
CHAPTER 2
2.1
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
Goals and Objectives for Managing the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery
The Council is committed to developing long-range plans for managing the Washington, Oregon, and
California groundfish fisheries that will promote a stable planning environment for the seafood industry,
including marine recreation interests, and will maintain the health of the resource and environment. In
developing allocation and harvesting systems, the Council will give consideration to maximizing economic
benefits to the United States, consistent with resource stewardship responsibilities for the continuing
welfare of the living marine resources. Thus, management must be flexible enough to meet changing social
and economic needs of the fishery as well as to address fluctuations in the marine resources supporting the
fishery. The following goals have been established in order of priority for managing the west coast
groundfish fisheries, to be considered in conjunction with the national standards of the Magnuson-Stevens
Act.
Management Goals
Goal 1 - Conservation. Prevent overfishing and rebuild overfished stocks by managing for appropriate
harvest levels and prevent, to the extent practicable, any net loss of the habitat of living marine resources.
Goal 2 - Economics. Maximize the value of the groundfish resource as a whole.
Goal 3 - Utilization. Within the constraints of overfished species rebuilding requirements, achieve the
maximum biological yield of the overall groundfish fishery, promote year-round availability of quality
seafood to the consumer, and promote recreational fishing opportunities.
Objectives. To accomplish these management goals, a number of objectives will be considered and
followed as closely as practicable:
Conservation
Objective 1. Maintain an information flow on the status of the fishery and the fishery resource which allows
for informed management decisions as the fishery occurs.
Objective 2. Adopt harvest specifications and management measures consistent with resource stewardship
responsibilities for each groundfish species or species group. Achieve a level of harvest capacity in the
fishery that is appropriate for a sustainable harvest and low discard rates, and which results in a fishery that
is diverse, stable, and profitable. This reduced capacity should lead to more effective management for many
other fishery problems.
Objective 3. For species or species groups that are overfished, develop a plan to rebuild the stock as soon
as possible, taking into account the status and biology of the stock, the needs of fishing communities,
recommendations by international organizations in which the United States participates, and the interaction
of the overfished stock within the marine ecosystem.
Objective 4. Where conservation problems have been identified for non-groundfish species and the best
scientific information shows that the groundfish fishery has a direct impact on the ability of that species to
maintain its long-term reproductive health, the Council may consider establishing management measures
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
7
December 2023
to control the impacts of groundfish fishing on those species. Management measures may be imposed on
the groundfish fishery to reduce fishing mortality of a non-groundfish species for documented conservation
reasons. The action will be designed to minimize disruption of the groundfish fishery, in so far as consistent
with the goal to minimize the bycatch of non-groundfish species, and will not preclude achievement of a
quota, harvest guideline, or allocation of groundfish, if any, unless such action is required by other
applicable law.
Objective 5. Describe and identify EFH, adverse impacts on EFH, and other actions to conserve and
enhance EFH, and adopt management measures that minimize, to the extent practicable, adverse impacts
from fishing on EFH.
Economics
Objective 6. Within the constraints of the conservation goals and objectives of the FMP, attempt to achieve
the greatest possible net economic benefit to the nation from the managed fisheries.
Objective 7. Identify those sectors of the groundfish fishery for which it is beneficial to promote yearround marketing opportunities and establish management policies that extend those sectors fishing and
marketing opportunities as long as practicable during the fishing year.
Objective 8. Gear restrictions to minimize the necessity for other management measures will be used
whenever practicable. Encourage development of practicable gear restrictions intended to reduce
regulatory and/or economic discards through gear research regulated by EFP.
Utilization
Objective 9. Develop management measures and policies that foster and encourage full utilization
(harvesting and processing), in accordance with conservation goals, of the Pacific Coast groundfish
resources by domestic fisheries.
Objective 10. Recognize the multispecies nature of the fishery and establish a concept of managing by
species and gear or by groups of interrelated species.
Objective 11. Develop management programs that reduce regulations-induced discard and/or which reduce
economic incentives to discard fish. Develop management measures that minimize bycatch to the extent
practicable and, to the extent that bycatch cannot be avoided, minimize the mortality of such bycatch.
Promote and support monitoring programs to improve estimates of total fishing-related mortality and
bycatch, as well as those to improve other information necessary to determine the extent to which it is
practicable to reduce bycatch and bycatch mortality.
Social Factors.
Objective 12. When conservation actions are necessary to protect a stock or stock assemblage, attempt to
develop management measures that will affect users equitably.
Objective 13. Minimize gear conflicts among resource users.
Objective 14. When considering alternative management measures to resolve an issue, choose the measure
that best accomplishes the change with the least disruption of current domestic fishing practices, marketing
procedures, and the environment.
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
8
December 2023
Objective 15. Avoid unnecessary adverse impacts on small entities.
Objective 16. Consider the importance of groundfish resources to fishing communities, provide for the
sustained participation of fishing communities, and minimize adverse economic impacts on fishing
communities to the extent practicable.
Objective 17. Promote the safety of human life at sea.
[Amended; 7, 11, 13, 16-1, 18, 16-4]
2.2
Operational Definition of Terms
Acceptable Biological Catch (ABC) is a harvest specification that accounts for the scientific uncertainty in
the estimate of OFL, and any other scientific uncertainty.
Accountability Measures (AMs) are management controls, such as inseason adjustments to fisheries or
annual catch targets, to prevent annual catch limits, including sector-specific annual catch limits, from being
exceeded, and to correct or mitigate overages of the annual catch limit if they occur. AMs should address
and minimize both the frequency and magnitude of overages and correct the problems that caused the
overage in as short a time as possible.
Annual Catch Limit (ACL) is a harvest specification set equal to or below the ABC in consideration of
conservation objectives, socioeconomic concerns, management uncertainty, ecological concerns, and other
factors. The ACL is a harvest limit that includes all sources of fishing-related mortality including landings,
discard mortality, research catches, and catches in exempted fishing permit activities. Sector-specific ACLs
can be specified, especially in cases where a sector has a formal, long-term allocation of the harvestable
surplus of a stock or stock complex. The ACL serves as the basis for invoking AMs.
Annual Catch Target (ACT) is a management target set below the ACL and may be used as an AM in cases
where there is uncertainty in inseason catch monitoring to ensure against exceeding an ACL. Since the
ACT is a target and not a limit it can be used in lieu of harvest guidelines or strategically to accomplish
other management objectives. Sector-specific ACTs can also be specified to accomplish management
objectives.
Biennial fishing period is defined as a 24-month period beginning January 1 and ending December 31.
Block Area Closure (BAC) is a type of groundfish conservation area bounded on the north and south by
commonly used geographic coordinates, and on the east and west by boundary lines approximating depth
contours, defined with latitude and longitude coordinates. BACs may be implemented or modified, in the
EEZ seaward of Washington, Oregon and California, as routine management measures.
Bottom (or flatfish bottom) trawl is a trawl in which the otter boards or the footrope of the net are in contact
with the seabed. It includes roller (or bobbin) trawls, Danish and Scottish seine gear, and pair trawls fished
on the bottom.
Bottom-contact gear by design, or as modified, and through normal use makes contact with the sea floor.
Bycatch means fish which are harvested in a fishery, but which are not sold or kept for personal use and
includes economic discards and regulatory discards. Such term does not include fish released alive under
a recreational catch and release fishery management program.
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
9
December 2023
Chafing gear is webbing or other material attached to the codend of a trawl net to protect the codend from
wear.
Charter fishing means fishing from a vessel carrying a passenger for hire (as defined in section 2101(21a)
of title 46, United States Code) who is engaged in recreational fishing.
Closure, when referring to closure of a fishery, means that taking and retaining, possessing or landing the
particular species or species complex is prohibited.
Council means the Pacific Fishery Management Council, including its Groundfish Management Team
(GMT), Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC), Groundfish Advisory Subpanel (GAP), and any other
committee established by the Council.
Commercial fishing is (1) fishing by a person who possesses a commercial fishing license or is required by
law to possess such license issued by one of the states or the Federal government as a prerequisite to taking,
landing, and/or sale; or (2) fishing which results in or can be reasonably expected to result in sale, barter,
trade, or other disposition of fish for other than personal consumption.
Double-walled codend is a codend constructed of two walls of webbing.
Economic discards means fish which are the target of a fishery, but which are not retained because they are
of an undesirable size, sex, quality, or for other economic reasons.
Ecosystem Component Species are FMP species that are not actively managed in the fishery (i.e., no harvest
specifications are specified for these species). Ecosystem component species are not targeted, are not
generally retained for sale or personal use, are not subject to overfishing, and are not overfished or
approaching an overfished condition (see section 4.4.4 for more detail). This FMP includes both EC species
that are specific to the Groundfish FMP and EC species that are shared between all four of the Council’s
FMPs (referred to as “Shared EC Species”).
Essential fish habitat means those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding,
or growth to maturity.
Exploitable biomass is the biomass that is available to a unit of fishing effort. Defined as the sum of the
population biomass at age (calculated as the mean within the fishing year) multiplied by the age-specific
availability to the fishery. Exploitable biomass is equivalent to the catch biomass divided by the
instantaneous fishing mortality rate.
F is the instantaneous rate of fishing mortality. F typically varies with age, so the F values are presented
for the age with maximum F. Fish of other ages have less availability to the fishery, so a unit of effort
applies a lower relative level of fishing mortality to these fish.
FMSY is the fishing mortality rate that maximizes catch biomass in the long term.
FSPR x% is the fishing mortality rate that will produce a given spawning potential ratio. The SPR is the
average fecundity of a recruit over its lifetime when the stock is fished divided by the average fecundity of
a recruit over its lifetime when the stock is unfished. The SPR is based on the principle that a certain
biomass of fish has to survive in order to spawn and replenish the stock at a sustainable level.
Fishing means (1) the catching, taking, or harvesting of fish; (2) the attempted catching, taking, or
harvesting of fish; (3) any other activity which can reasonably be expected to result in the catching, taking,
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
10
December 2023
or harvesting of fish; or (4) any operations at sea in support of, or in preparation for, any activity described
above. This term does not include any activity by a vessel conducting authorized scientific research.
Fishing year is defined as January 1 through December 31.
Fishing community means a community which is substantially dependent on or substantially engaged in
the harvest or processing of fishery resources to meet social and economic needs and includes fishing vessel
owners, operators, crew, and recreational fishers and United States fish processors that are based in such
community.
Fixed gear (anchored non-trawl gear) includes longline, trap or pot, set net, and stationary hook-and-line
gear (including commercial vertical hook-and-line gears).
Gillnet is a single-walled, rectangular net which is set upright in the water.
Harvest guideline (HG) is a specified numerical harvest objective which is not a quota. Attainment of a
HG does not require closure of a fishery.
Hook-and-line means one or more hooks attached to one or more lines. Commercial hook-and-line fisheries
may be mobile (troll) or stationary (anchored).
Incidental catch or incidental species means groundfish species caught when fishing for the primary purpose
of catching a different species.
Individual fishing quota (IFQ) means a Federal permit under a limited access system to harvest a quantity
of fish expressed by a unit or units representing a percentage of the total allowable catch of a fishery that
may be received or held for exclusive use by a person.
Longline is a stationary, buoyed, and anchored groundline with hooks attached, so as to fish along the
seabed.
Maximum fishing mortality threshold (MFMT) is the level of fishing mortality (F), on an annual basis,
above which overfishing is occurring. The MFMT or reasonable proxy may be expressed either as a single
number (a fishing mortality rate or F value), or as a function of spawning biomass or other measure of
reproductive potential.
Maximum sustainable yield (MSY) is an estimate of the largest average annual catch or yield that can be
taken over a significant period of time from each stock under prevailing ecological and environmental
conditions. It may be presented as a range of values. One MSY may be specified for a group of species in
a mixed-species fishery. Since MSY is a long-term average, it need not be specified annually, but may be
reassessed periodically based on the best scientific information available.
Midwater (pelagic or off-bottom) trawl is a trawl in which the otter boards may occasionally contact the
seabed, but the footrope of the net remains above the seabed. It includes pair trawls if fished in midwater.
A midwater trawl has no rollers or bobbins on the net.
MSY stock size means the largest long-term average size of the stock or stock complex, measured in terms
of spawning biomass or other appropriate units that would be achieved under an MSY control rule in which
the fishing mortality rate is constant. The proxy typically used in this fishery management plan is 40 percent
of the estimated unfished biomass, although other values based on the best scientific information are also
authorized.
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
11
December 2023
Minimum stock size threshold (MSST) is the level of biomass below which the stock or stock complex is
considered to be overfished.
Non-trawl gear means all legal commercial gear other than trawl gear.
Optimum yield (OY) means the amount of fish which will provide the greatest overall benefit to the U.S.,
particularly with respect to food production and recreational opportunities, and taking into account the
protection of marine ecosystems, is prescribed as such on the basis of the MSY from the fishery as reduced
by any relevant economic, social, or ecological factor; and in the case of an overfished fishery, provides for
rebuilding to a level consistent with producing the MSY in such fishery.
Overfished describes any stock or stock complex whose size is sufficiently diminished that a change in
management practices is required to achieve an appropriate level and rate of rebuilding. The term generally
describes any stock or stock complex determined to be below its overfished/rebuilding threshold. The
default proxy is generally 25 percent of its estimated unfished biomass; however, other scientifically valid
values are also authorized.
Overfishing means exceeding an OFL specified in regulations.
Overfishing limit (OFL) is the MSY harvest level or the annual abundance of exploitable biomass of a stock
or stock complex multiplied by the maximum fishing mortality threshold or proxy thereof and is an estimate
of the catch level above which overfishing is occurring.
Processing or to process means the preparation or packaging of groundfish to render it suitable for human
consumption, retail sale, industrial uses, or long-term storage, including, but not limited to, cooking,
canning, smoking, salting, drying, filleting, freezing, or rendering into meal or oil, but does not mean
heading and gutting unless additional preparation is done.
Processor means a person, vessel, or facility that (1) engages in processing, or (2) receives live groundfish
directly from a fishing vessel for sale without further processing.
Prohibited species are those species and species groups which must be returned to the sea as soon as is
practicable with a minimum of injury when caught and brought aboard except when their retention is
authorized by other applicable law. Exception may be made in the implementing regulations for tagged
fish, which must be returned to the tagging agency, or for examination by an authorized observer.
Quota means a specified numerical harvest objective, the attainment (or expected attainment) of which
causes closure of the fishery for that species or species group. Groundfish species or species groups under
this FMP for which quotas have been achieved shall be treated in the same manner as prohibited species.
Recreational fishing means fishing for sport or pleasure, but not for sale.
Regulatory discards are fish harvested in a fishery which fishermen are required by regulation to discard
whenever caught or are required by regulation to retain, but not sell.
Rockfish Conservation Area means an area of the EEZ closed to fishing with certain gear types to control
catch of groundfish. Areas are bounded on the east and west by latitude and longitude coordinates that
approximate depth contours and may extend coastwide (north and south) and around islands.
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
12
December 2023
Roller (or bobbin) trawl is a bottom trawl that has footropes equipped with rollers or bobbins made of wood,
steel, rubber, plastic, or other hard material intended to keep the footrope above the seabed, thereby
protecting the net.
Set-aside is the amount of yield of an actively managed stock or stock complex that is deducted from an
ACL or sector allocation. A set-aside deducted from an ACL is designed to accommodate catch in Tribal
fisheries, research fisheries, exempted fishing permit activities, and bycatch in non-groundfish fisheries. A
set-aside deducted from a sector allocation is designed to accommodate catch for a portion of the sector
where within-sector allocations are not specified (e.g., set-asides for the at-sea whiting sectors for many
stocks are deducted from formal trawl allocations to accommodate expected bycatch).
Set net is a stationary, buoyed, and anchored gillnet or trammel net.
Spawning biomass is the biomass of mature female fish at the beginning of the year. If the production of
eggs is not proportional to body weight, then this definition should be modified to be proportional to
expected egg production.
Spawning biomass per recruit (SPR) is the expected egg production of a female fish over its lifetime.
Alternatively, this is the mature female biomass of an equilibrium stock divided by the mean level of
recruitment that produced this stock.
Spear is a sharp, pointed, or barbed instrument on a shaft. Spears may be propelled by hand or by
mechanical means.
Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) document is a document prepared by the Council that
provides a summary of the most recent biological condition of species in the fishery management unit, and
the social and economic condition of the recreational and commercial fishing industries. It summarizes, on
a periodic basis, the best available information concerning the past, present, and possible future condition
of the stocks and fisheries managed by the FMP.
Target fishing means fishing for the primary purpose of catching a particular species or species group (the
target species).
Trammel net is a gillnet made with two or more walls joined to a common float line.
Trap (or pot) is a portable, enclosed device with one or more gates or entrances and one or more lines
attached to surface floats.
Vertical hook-and-line gear (commercial) is hook-and-line gear that involves a single line anchored at the
bottom and buoyed at the surface so as to fish vertically.
[Amended: 5, 11, 13, 17, 18, 19, 23, 25, 30]
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
13
December 2023
CHAPTER 3
AREAS AND STOCKS INVOLVED
The management regime of this FMP applies to:
1. The U.S. EEZ of the northeast Pacific ocean that lies between the U.S.-Canada border (as specified
in Federal Register, Volume 42, Number 44, March 7, 1977, page 12938) and the U.S.-Mexico
border (Figure 3-1).
2. All foreign and domestic commercial and recreational vessels which are used to fish for groundfish
in the management area.
3. Groundfish stocks of this fishery management unit (FMU) (Table 3-1).
4. All groundfish species comprising this FMU (Table 3-2).
Management Areas. Upon consideration of stock distribution and domestic and foreign historical catch
statistics, the following statistical areas (Figure 3-1) have been determined by the Pacific Fishery
Management Council (Council) to be the most convenient administrative and biological management areas.
These areas are based on International North Pacific Fisheries Commission (INPFC) statistical areas, but
in some cases have been modified slightly. The areas are, from south to north:
Conception - Southern boundary of EEZ to 36⁰00' N latitude
Monterey - 36⁰00' N latitude to 40⁰30' N latitude
Eureka - 40⁰30' N latitude to 43⁰00' N latitude
Columbia - 43⁰00' N latitude to 47⁰30' N latitude
Vancouver - 47⁰30' N latitude to northern boundary of the EEZ
These areas may be modified or deleted and additional statistical reporting and management areas may be
added, modified, or deleted if necessary to refine information or management of a species or species group.
Changes will be implemented in accordance with the procedures in Chapters 5 and 6.
3.1
Species Managed by this Fishery Management Plan
Table 3-1 is the listing of species actively managed under this FMP.
Table 3-1. Common and scientific names of species actively managed in this FMP.
Common Name
Scientific Name
ELASMOBRANCHS
Big skate
Leopard shark
Longnose skate
Pacific Spiny dogfish
Raja binoculata
Triakis semifasciata
Raja rhina
Squalus suckleyi
ROUNDFISH
Cabezon
Kelp greenling
Lingcod
Pacific cod
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
Scorpaenichthys marmoratus
Hexagrammos decagrammus
Ophiodon elongatus
Gadus macrocephalus
15
December 2023
Common Name
Pacific whiting (hake)
Sablefish
Scientific Name
Merluccius productus
Anoplopoma fimbria
ROCKFISH 1
Aurora rockfish
Bank rockfish
Black rockfish
Black and yellow rockfish
Blackgill rockfish
Blackspotted rockfish
Blue rockfish
Bocaccio
Bronzespotted rockfish
Brown rockfish
Calico rockfish
California scorpionfish
Canary rockfish
Chameleon rockfish
Chilipepper rockfish
China rockfish
Copper rockfish
Cowcod
Darkblotched rockfish
Deacon rockfish
Dusky rockfish
Dwarf-red rockfish
Flag rockfish
Freckled rockfish
Gopher rockfish
Grass rockfish
Greenblotched rockfish
Greenspotted rockfish
Greenstriped rockfish
Halfbanded rockfish
Harlequin rockfish
Honeycomb rockfish
Kelp rockfish
Longspine thornyhead
Mexican rockfish
Olive rockfish
Pink rockfish
Pinkrose rockfish
Pygmy rockfish
Pacific ocean perch
Quillback rockfish
1
Sebastes aurora
S. rufus
S. melanops
S. chrysomelas
S. melanostomus
S. melanostictus
S. mystinus
S. paucispinis
S. gilli
S. auriculatus
S. dallii
Scorpaena gutatta
Sebastes pinniger
S. phillipsi
S. goodei
S. nebulosus
S. caurinus
S. levis
S. crameri
S. diaconus
S. ciliatus
S. rufinanus
S. rubrivinctus
S lentiginosus
S. carnatus
S. rastrelliger
S. rosenblatti
S. chlorostictus
S. elongatus
S. semicinctus
S. variegatus
S. umbrosus
S. atrovirens
Sebastolobus altivelis
Sebastes macdonaldi
S. serranoides
S. eos
S. simulator
S. wilsoni
S. alutus
S. maliger
The category “rockfish” includes all genera and species of the family Scorpaenidae, even if not listed, that occur in the
Washington, Oregon, and California area. The Scorpaenidae genera are Sebastes, Scorpaena, Sebastolobus, and
Scorpaenodes.
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
16
December 2023
Common Name
Redbanded rockfish
Redstripe rockfish
Rosethorn rockfish
Rosy rockfish
Rougheye rockfish
Sharpchin rockfish
Shortraker rockfish
Shortspine thornyhead
Silvergray rockfish
Speckled rockfish
Splitnose rockfish
Squarespot rockfish
Sunset rockfish
Starry rockfish
Stripetail rockfish
Swordspine rockfish
Tiger rockfish
Treefish
Vermilion rockfish
Widow rockfish
Yelloweye rockfish
Yellowmouth rockfish
Yellowtail rockfish
Scientific Name
S. babcocki
S. proriger
S. helvomaculatus
S. rosaceus
S. aleutianus
S. zacentrus
S. borealis
Sebastolobus alascanus
Sebastes brevispinis
S. ovalis
S. diploproa
S. hopkinsi
S. crocotulus
S. constellatus
S. saxicola
S. ensifer
S. nigrocinctus
S. serriceps
S. miniatus
S. entomelas
S. ruberrimus
S. reedi
S. flavidus
FLATFISH
Arrowtooth flounder (turbot)
Butter sole
Curlfin sole
Dover sole
English sole
Flathead sole
Pacific sanddab
Petrale sole
Rex sole
Rock sole
Sand sole
Starry flounder
3.2
Atheresthes stomias
Isopsetta isolepis
Pleuronichthys decurrens
Microstomus pacificus
Parophrys vetulus
Hippoglossoides elassodon
Citharichthys sordidus
Eopsetta jordani
Glyptocephalus zachirus
Lepidopsetta bilineata
Psettichthys melanostictus
Platichthys stellatus
Stocks Managed under this Fishery Management Plan
The Council geographically delineates (i.e., defines) stocks of managed groundfish species (Table 3-2)
describes the stock and its boundaries. Stock definitions are based on the best scientific information
available, taking into consideration the goals and objectives of the FMP and other requirements. The
Council may review, and potentially adjust, a stock definition based on new information. Updating the
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
17
December 2023
defined stocks would require a FMP amendment.
Table 3-2. Groundfish stocks within the fishery management unit (FMU) of the Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
and their boundaries, as amended through Amendment 31.
Stock
Species Scientific Name
Stock Boundaries
Squalus suckleyi
Pacific West Coast FMU
Lingcod North
Ophiodon elongatus
North of 40°10' N. lat.
Lingcod South
Ophiodon elongatus
South of 40°10' N. lat.
Sablefish
Anoplopoma fimbria
Pacific West Coast FMU
Black Rockfish - Washington
Sebastes melanops
North of 46°16' N. lat.
Black Rockfish - Oregon
S. melanops
46°16' N. lat. to 42° N. lat.
Black Rockfish - California
S. melanops
South of 42° N. lat.
Canary Rockfish
S. pinniger
Pacific West Coast FMU
Copper Rockfish North
S. caurinus
North of 42° N. lat.
Copper Rockfish South
S. caurinus
South 42° N. lat.
Quillback Rockfish -Washington
S. maliger
North of 46°16' N. lat.
Quillback Rockfish - Oregon
S. maliger
46°16' N. lat. to 42° N. lat.
Quillback Rockfish - California
S. maliger
South of 42° N. lat.
Squarespot Rockfish
S. hopkinsi
Pacific West Coast FMU
Vermilion Rockfish
S. miniatus
North of 42° N. lat.
Vermilion/Sunset Rockfish
S. miniatus/S. crocotulus
South 42° N. lat.
Shortspine Thornyhead
Sebastolobus alascanus
Pacific West Coast FMU
Dover Sole
Microstomus pacificus
Pacific West Coast FMU
Petrale Sole
Eopsetta jordani
Pacific West Coast FMU
Rex Sole
Glyptocephalus zachirus
Pacific West Coast FMU
Elasmobranchs
Pacific Spiny Dogfish
Roundfish
Rockfish
2
Flatfish
3.3
Ecosystem Component Species
The species in Table 3-3 are designated Ecosystem Component Species (see section 4.4.4 for more details).
The inclusion of all endemic skates, except longnose and big skate, and all endemic grenadiers will allow
more precise catch monitoring without the need for a sorting requirement for these species since skates and
grenadiers are generally landed in unidentified species market categories (e.g., Unidentified Skates).
2
The category “rockfish” includes all genera (Sebastes, Scorpaena, Sebastolobus, and Scorpaenodes) and species of the family
Scorpaenidae, even if not listed, that occur in the waters off Washington, Oregon, and California.
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
18
December 2023
Table 3-3. Groundfish species designated as Ecosystem Component Species.
Common Name
Shortbelly rockfish
Scientific Name
Sebastes jordani
Aleutian skate
Bathyraja aleutica
Bering/sandpaper skate
B. interrupta
California skate
R. inornata
Roughtail/black skate
Bathyraja trachura
All other skates
Endemic species in the family Arhynchobatidae
Pacific grenadier
Coryphaenoides acrolepis
Giant grenadier
Albatrossia pectoralis
All other grenadiers
Endemic species in the family Macrouridae
Finescale codling (aka Pacific flatnose)
Antimora microlepis
Ratfish
Hydrolagus colliei
Soupfin shark
Galeorhinus zyopterus
Table 3-4 lists EC species shared between all four of the Council’s FMPs, including the Groundfish FMP.
Table 3-4. Common and scientific names of EC species shared between all four of the Council’s FMPs.
Common Name
Scientific Name
Round herring
Thread herring
Mesopelagic fishes
Pacific sand lance
Pacific saury
Silversides
Smelts
Pelagic squids
Etrumeus teres
Opisthonema libertate, O. medirastre
Families: Myctophidae, Bathylagidae, Paralepididae, and
Gonostomatidae
Ammodytes hexapterus
Cololabis saira
Atherinopsidae
Osmeridae
Families: Cranchiidae, Gonatidae, Histioteuthidae, Octopoteuthidae,
Ommastrephidae except Humboldt squid (Dosidicus gigas),
Onychoteuthidae, and Thysanoteuthidae
No directed commercial fisheries may begin for any Shared EC Species until and unless the Council has
had an adequate opportunity to both assess the scientific information relating to any proposed directed
fishery and consider potential impacts to existing fisheries, fishing communities, and the greater marine
ecosystem.
[Amended: 11, 16-1, 24, 25, 27, 31]
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
19
December 2023
Figure 3-1. International North Pacific Fisheries Commission (INPFC) statistical areas in the U.S. exclusive
economic zone seaward of Washington, Oregon, and California.
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
20
December 2023
CHAPTER 4
PREVENTING OVERFISHING
AND ACHIEVING OPTIMUM YIELD
4.1
National Standard 1 Guidelines
National Standard 1 requires that “Conservation and management measures shall prevent overfishing while
achieving, on a continuing basis, the OY from each fishery for the U.S. fishing industry” (50 CFR
600.310(a)).
The determination of optimum yield (OY) is a decisional mechanism for resolving the Magnuson-Stevens
Act’s multiple purposes and policies, implementing an FMP’s objectives and balancing the various interests
that comprise the national welfare. OY is based on MSY or on MSY as it may be reduced ... [in
consideration of social, economic or ecological factors]. The most important limitation on the specification
of OY is that the choice of OY and the conservation and management measures proposed to achieve it must
prevent overfishing (50 CFR Section 600.310(b)).
This chapter addresses the essential considerations suggested for National Standard 1, as identified in the
NMFS guidelines on the standard (50 CFR Section 600.310):
•
•
•
•
Estimating MSY, estimating the MSY biomass, and setting the MSY control rule (50 CFR
600.310(c); Section 4.3 of this chapter).
Specifying stock status determination criteria (maximum fishing mortality threshold (MFMT) and
minimum stock size threshold (MSST), or reasonable proxies thereof) (50 CFR 600.310(d); Section
4.5 of this chapter).
Actions for ending overfishing and rebuilding overfished stocks (including the development and
adoption of rebuilding plans) (50 CFR 600.310(e); Section 4.6 of this chapter).
Setting OY and apportionment of harvest levels (50 CFR 600.310(f); Section 4.7 of this chapter).
In establishing OYs for west coast groundfish, this FMP uses the interim step of calculating overfishing
limits (OFLs), acceptable biological catches (ABCs), and annual catch limits (ACLs) for major stocks or
management units (groups of species). OFL is the MSY harvest level associated with the current stock
abundance. Over the long term, if OFLs are fully harvested, the average of the OFLs would be MSY. ABC
is a threshold below the OFL, which accounts for scientific uncertainty in the estimate of OFL. ACL is a
harvest specification set at or below ABC and is intended to prevent overfishing.
The ACLs are established to achieve OY in the fishery. The OY for a stock or stock complex is the longterm average of the stock or stock complexes ACLs.
OYs and ACLs are set and apportioned under the procedures outlined in Chapter 5.
[Added: 16-1, Amended 16-4 and 23]
4.2
Species Categories
BMSY, OFL, and the overfished/rebuilding stock size threshold cannot be precisely defined for all species,
because of the absence of available information for many species managed under the FMP. For the purpose
of setting MSY, OFL, MFMT, MSST, ABC, OY, ACL and rebuilding standards, three categories of species
are identified. The first, described as Category 1 species, are the relatively few species for which a “datarich”, quantitative stock assessment can be conducted on the basis of catch-at-age, catch-at-length, or other
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
21
December 2023
data. OFLs and overfished/rebuilding thresholds can generally be calculated for these species. ABCs can
also be calculated for these species based on the uncertainty of the biomass estimated within an assessment
or the variance in biomass estimates between assessments for all species in this category. The set of
Category 2 species includes a large number of species for which some biological indicators are available,
yet status is based on a “data-moderate” quantitative assessment. The Category 3 species include minor
species which are caught, but for which there is, at best, only information on landed biomass. For species
in this category, there is limited data to quantitatively determine MSY, OFL, or an overfished threshold.
Typically, catch-based methods (e.g., depletion-based stock reduction analysis (DBSRA), depletioncorrected average catch (DCAC), and average catches) are used to determine the OFL for Category 3
species.
Detailed definitions for these three species categories is provided in a Terms of Reference document
specifying the review process the Council uses to evaluate new stock assessments for groundfish FMP
species.
A fourth category of species is identified as ecosystem component (EC) species. These species are not “in
the fishery” and therefore not actively managed. EC species are not targeted in any fishery and are not
generally retained for sale or personal use. EC species are not determined to be subject to overfishing,
approaching an overfished condition, or overfished, nor are they likely to become subject to overfishing or
overfished in the absence of conservation and management measures. While EC species are not considered
to be “in the fishery,” the Council should consider measures for the fishery to minimize bycatch and bycatch
mortality of EC species consistent with National Standard 9, and to protect their associated role in the
ecosystem. EC species do not require specification of reference points but should be monitored to the
extent that any new pertinent scientific information becomes available (e.g., catch trends, vulnerability,
etc.) to determine changes in their status or their vulnerability to the fishery. If necessary, they should be
reclassified as “in the fishery.”
[Amended: 16-1, 23]
4.3
Determination of MSY, or MSY Proxy, and BMSY
Harvest policies are to be specified according to standard reference points such as MSY, where MSY is
interpreted as a maximum average achievable catch under prevailing ecological and environmental
conditions over a prolonged period. The long-term average biomass associated with fishing at FMSY is BMSY.
In this FMP, MSY generally refers to a constant F control rule that is assumed to produce the maximum
average yield over time while protecting the spawning potential of the stock. Thus, the constant F control
rule is generally the proxy for the MSY control rule. Fishing rates above FMSY eventually result in biomass
smaller than BMSY and produce less harvestable fish on a sustainable basis. The biomass level that produces
MSY (i.e., BMSY) is generally unknown and assumed to be variable over time due to long-term fluctuations
in ocean conditions, so that no single value is appropriate. During periods of unfavorable environmental
conditions, it is important to account for reduced sustainable yield levels.
One problem with an FMSY control rule is that it is tightly linked to an assumed level of density-dependence
in recruitment, and there is insufficient information to determine the level of density-dependence in
recruitment for many west coast groundfish stocks. Therefore, the use of approximations or proxies is
necessary. Absent a more accurate determination of FMSY, the Council will apply default MSY proxies.
The 2015 default FMSY proxies are: F30% for flatfish, F40% for whiting, F50% for rockfish (including
thornyheads), F50% for elasmobranchs, and F45% for roundfish species such as sablefish and lingcod. The
default FMSY proxies (F30%, F40%, F45%, and F50%) are science-based values that are expected to be modified
from time to time as scientific knowledge improves. The default FMSY proxies in use for the current biennial
harvest specifications period can be found in the Groundfish Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation
(SAFE) document. If available information is sufficient, values of FMSY, BMSY, and more appropriate
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
22
December 2023
harvest control rules may be developed for any species or species group.
At this time, it is generally believed that the FMSY proxies strike a balance between obtaining a large fraction
of the MSY if recruitment is highly insensitive to reductions in spawning biomass and preventing a rapid
depletion in stock abundance if recruitment is found to be extremely sensitive to reductions in spawning
biomass. The long-term expected yield under an FMSY proxy policy depends upon the (unknown) level of
density-dependence in recruitment. The F45% level of harvest, for example, will reduce the average lifetime
egg production by each female entering the stock to 45 percent of the lifetime egg production for females
that are unfished.
Under a Beverton-Holt stock-recruitment relationship, which is the form of relationship commonly assumed
for west coast groundfish stocks, the level of recruitment is expected to decline as a stock is fished at F45%
and the expected value for the BMSY proxy is less than 45 percent of the unfished biomass. A biomass level
of 25 percent of unfished (BUNFISHED) is considered a reasonable proxy for BMSY for west coast flatfish
species and a biomass level of 40 percent of BUNFISHED is considered reasonable for other west coast
groundfish species. The short-term yield under an F45% policy will vary as the abundance of the exploitable
stock varies. This is true for any fishing policy that is based on a constant exploitation rate. The abundance
of the stock will vary, because of the effects of fishing, and because of natural variation in recruitment.
When stock abundance is high (i.e., near its average unfished level), short-term annual yields can be
approximately two to three times greater than the expected long-term average annual yield. For many of
the long-lived groundfish species common on the west coast, this “fishing down” transition can take
decades. Many of the declines in ABC that occurred during the 1980s were the result of this transition from
a lightly exploited, high abundance stock level to a fully exploited, moderately abundant stock level.
Further declines below the overfished levels in the 1990s were due in large part to harvest rate policies that
were later discovered to not be sustainable. Stock assessments conducted during the late 1990s and early
2000s indicated that west coast groundfish stocks likely have lower levels of productivity than other similar
species worldwide. Based on this retrospective view, harvest rate policies in the 1990s were subsequently
thought to be too high to maintain stocks at BMSY. At various times the Council has revised its harvest rate
policies as additional information has accumulated regarding the productivity of groundfish species as
described below.
Historical Development of Council Proxies for FMSY and BMSY
Scientific information as of 1997 (Clark 1993; Ianelli and Heifetz 1995; Mace 1994) indicated that F35%
might not be the best approximation of FMSY, given more realistic information about recruitment than was
initially used by Clark in 1991. In his 1993 publication Clark extended his 1991 results by improving the
realism of his simulations and analysis. In particular he (1) modeled stochasticity into the recruitment
process, (2) introduced serial correlation into recruitment time series, and (3) performed separate analyses
for the Ricker and Beverton-Holt spawner-recruit functions. For rockfish, these changes improved the
realism of his SPR harvest policy calculations, because these species are known to have stochastic
recruitment and they appear to display serial correlation in recruitments (especially on interdecadal time
scales), and because the Beverton-Holt spawner-recruit curve may be biologically the most plausible
recruitment model. The effect of each of these changes, in isolation and in aggregate, was to decrease the
estimate of FMSY. Consequently, the estimated spawning biomass per recruit (SPR) reduction needed to
provide an optimal FMSY proxy (defined as that level of fishing which produces the largest assured
proportion of MSY), must necessarily be increased. Clark concluded that F40% is the optimal rate for fish
stocks exhibiting recruitment variability similar to Alaska groundfish stocks. Likewise, Mace (Mace 1994)
recommended the use of F40% as the target mortality rate when the stock-recruitment relationship is
unknown. Lastly, Ianelli and Heifetz (Ianelli and Heifetz 1995) determined that F44% was a good FMSY
proxy for Gulf of Alaska Pacific ocean perch, although they subsequently indicated that a recent recruitment
to that stock was larger than expected and that F44% may be too conservative in that case.
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
23
December 2023
Based on this information and advice by its GMT, in 1997 the Council concluded that F40% should be used
as the proxy for FMSY for rockfish in the absence of specific knowledge of recruitment or life history
characteristics which would allow a more accurate determination of FMSY. This proxy was later revised
based on further Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) investigation into the appropriate FMSY proxies
in 2000.
In the spring of 2000, the Council’s SSC sponsored a workshop to review the Council’s groundfish
exploitation rate policy. The workshop explored the historic use of different fishing mortality (F) rates and
found that the Council’s past practices have generally changed in response to new information from the
scientific community. Starting in the early 1990s, the Council used a standard harvest rate of F35%. The
SSC’s workshop participants reported that new scientific studies in 1998 and 1999 had shown that the F35%
and F40% rates used by the Council had been too aggressive for some Pacific Coast groundfish stocks, such
that some groundfish stocks could not maintain a viable population over time. A 1999 study, The MetaAnalysis of the Maximum Reproductive Rate for Fish Populations to Estimate Harvest Policy; a Review
(Myers, et al. 2000) showed that some Pacific Coast groundfish stocks, particularly rockfish, have very low
productivity compared to other, similar species worldwide. One prominent theory about the reason for this
low productivity is the large-scale North Pacific climate shifts that are thought to cycle Pacific Coast waters
through warm and cool phases of 20-30 years duration. Pacific Coast waters shifted to a warm phase around
1977-1978, with ocean conditions less favorable for Pacific Coast groundfish and other fish stocks. Lower
harvest rates are necessary to guard against steep declines in abundance during these periods of low
productivity (low recruitment). After an intensive review of historic harvest rates, and current scientific
literature on harvest rates and stock productivity, the SSC workshop concluded that F40% is too aggressive
for many Pacific Coast groundfish stocks, particularly for rockfish. For 2001 and beyond, the Council
adopted the SSC’s new recommendations for harvest policies of: F40% for flatfish and whiting, F50% for
rockfish (including thornyheads) and F45% for other groundfish such as sablefish and lingcod. In 2009,
based on an SSC meta-analysis of flatfish productivity and the relationship between stock-recruitment
steepness and fishing mortality rate, the SSC recommended and the Council adopted a new proxy FMSY
harvest rate for assessed flatfish species of F30%. In 2014, the SSC recommended and the Council adopted
a more conservative proxy 50 percent SPR harvest rate as an interim measure for elasmobranchs. The F50%
harvest rate was based on an SSC meta-analysis of Chondrichthyes species using the posterior distribution
for FMSY/M values as reported by Zhou et al. (2012). The SSC said they may further investigate sustainable
harvest rates for Council-managed elasmobranchs as more information becomes available in the future.
In the past, FMSY fishing rates were treated by the Council (as intended) as targets. Under the MagnusonStevens Act as amended in 1996, these fishing rates are more appropriately considered to be thresholds that
should not be exceeded (see Section 4.4).
The Council will consider any new scientific information relating to calculation of MSY or MSY proxies
and may adopt new values based on improved understanding of the population dynamics and harvest of
any species or group of species.
While BMSY may be set based on the averaged unfished abundance (BUNFISHED), there are many possible
approximations and estimates of mean BUNFISHED. The option currently preferred by the SSC is to set
BUNFISHED to the equilibrium point of the stock-recruitment relationship in the absence of exploitation.
[Amended: 5, 11, 16-1, 23]
4.4
Determination of OFL and ABC
In establishing OYs and ACLs for west coast groundfish, this FMP utilizes the interim step of calculating
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
24
December 2023
OFLs and ABCs for major stocks or management units (groups of species). OFL is the MSY harvest level
associated with the current stock abundance. Over the long term, if OFLs are fully harvested, the average
of the OFLs would be MSY. The SSC recommends the OFL based on application of a proxy or
deterministic FMSY harvest rate to the estimated exploitable biomass of the stock or, for unassessed stocks,
an historical catch-based approach (e.g., average catch, depletion-corrected average catch, or depletionbased stock reduction analysis).
The ABC is a harvest specification set below the OFL and is a threshold that incorporates a scientific
uncertainty buffer against overfishing (i.e., exceeding the OFL). The ABC is adopted by the Council based
on its preferred level of risk aversion in combination with the recommendations of the SSC regarding
scientific uncertainty. The ABC is based on a percentage reduction of the OFL. In cases where scientific
uncertainty associated with estimating an OFL (σ) is quantified by the SSC, the percentage reduction that
defines the scientific uncertainty buffer and the ABC can be determined by translating the estimated σ to a
range of probability of overfishing (P*) values. Each P* value is then mapped to its corresponding buffer
fraction 1. The Council then determines the preferred level of risk aversion by selecting an appropriate P*
value, accordingly. In cases where the P* approach is used, the upper limit of P* values considered will be
0.45.
Stocks with OFL and ABC Set by Data-Rich Quantitative Assessments, Category
1
The stocks with data-rich quantitative assessments are those that have recently been assessed by a catch-atage or catch-at-length analysis and judged to be informative for deciding stock-specific harvest
specifications by the SSC. Annual evaluation of the appropriate MSY proxy (e.g., F45%) for species in this
category will require some specific information in the SAFE document. Estimated age- or length-specific
maturity, growth, and availability to the fishery (with evaluation of changes over time in these
characteristics) are sufficient to determine the relationship between fishing mortality and yield-per-recruit
and spawning biomass-per-recruit. The estimated time series of recruitment, spawning biomass, and fishing
mortality are also required to determine whether recent trends indicate a point of concern. In general, OFL
will be calculated by applying F45% (or F40%, F50%, or other established MSY proxy) to the best estimate of
current biomass. This current biomass estimate may be for a single year or the average of the present and
several future years. Thus, OFL may be intended to remain constant over a period of two or more years.
The ABC, which incorporates a scientific uncertainty buffer against overfishing, can be calculated for
Category 1 species using the probability of overfishing (P*) approach. The SSC quantifies the variability
in biomass estimates (σ, sigma) for Category 1 species from stock assessments and the Council chooses the
P* as described above to determine the size of the scientific uncertainty buffer. The SSC has also
recommended larger biomass variability (σ) 2 proxy values for Category 2 and 3 stocks. In cases where the
biomass variance estimated for a Category 1 stock is greater than the proxy value for Category 1 stocks,
the internally estimated biomass variance is used instead for calculating the ABC buffer for that stock.
Approaches to quantifying the variability on biomass estimates include using the standard error about the
estimated biomass of a stock in the most recently approved assessment and estimating the betweenassessment variance in biomass estimates for a stock with multiple assessments or for all Category 1 stocks
with multiple assessments in the meta-analysis. A proxy variability (sigma) can be calculated using this
latter approach for all or some Category 1 species. These approaches are not exclusive and the SSC may
recommend additional approaches to quantifying scientific uncertainty for Category 1 species, including
Since estimated OFLs are median estimates, there is a 50% probability that the OFL is overestimated. Therefore, a P* of 0.5
equates to no scientific uncertainty or, in other words, the ABC is set equal to the OFL.
2 Sigma is actually a standard deviation; sigma2 is a variance.
1
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
25
December 2023
approaches that are specific to individual stocks. Once scientific uncertainty is quantified, it is mapped to
an estimated P*. The Council chooses the ABC from the SSC recommended range based on its choice of
P*, which is a risk-assessment policy decision. The P*-Sigma approach for quantifying scientific
uncertainty will be the default approach for Category 1 species unless an SSC-recommended method is
adopted by the Council during the biennial specification process.
Stocks with OFL and ABC Set by Data-Moderate Quantitative Assessment,
Category 2
These stocks with OFL set by data-moderate quantitative assessments are less robust and more uncertain
than Category 1 assessments, but do inform stock status by including at least one time series index of
relative abundance. Category 2 stocks may have a recent assessment that was conducted using a Councilapproved data-moderate assessment approach (e.g., extended DB-SRA) or that was judged to be relatively
data-poor by the SSC (e.g., inadequate compositional data to estimate annual recruitment deviations).
Detailed biological information (i.e., age and/or length composition data) is not routinely available or used
in an assessment for these stocks, and OFL levels have typically been established on the basis of a datamoderate assessment which uses an historical catch-based approach coupled with at least one index of
relative abundance. The Council places high priority on improving the information for managing these
stocks so that they may be moved to Category 1 status.
Since there is greater scientific uncertainty for Category 2 stocks relative to Category 1 stocks, the scientific
uncertainty buffer is generally greater than that recommended for Category 1 stocks. A P* approach can
be used to determine the ABC. In such cases, the SSC recommends a value for σ, which is typically larger
than an associated σ for Category 1 stocks, and the Council chooses the P* value to determine the size of
the scientific uncertainty buffer. While other approaches for determining the scientific uncertainty in
calculating the OFL (i.e., determining the ABC) are allowed (see below), only the P* approach has been
used since implementation of the new harvest management framework in 2011 under Amendment 23.
The following approaches can be considered for setting the ABC for Category 2 stocks:
•
•
Apply a buffer of .25 for Category 2 stocks or
Set the value of sigma for Category 2 stocks to two times the coefficient of variation (CV) for
Category 1 stocks. These specific values are not based on a formal analysis of assessment outcomes
and could change substantially when the SSC reviews additional analyses.
These approaches for quantifying scientific uncertainty will be the default approaches for Category 2
species unless an SSC-recommended method is adopted by the Council during the biennial specification
process.
Stocks with OFL and ABC Values Set by Data-Poor Assessment, Category 3
Of the 100-plus groundfish species managed under the FMP, OFL values have been established for only
about 32 based on Category 1 or 2 assessments. The remaining species are incidentally landed and usually
are not listed separately on fish landing receipts. Information from fishery independent surveys is often
lacking for these stocks, because of their low abundance or they are not vulnerable to survey sampling gear.
Until sufficient quantities of at-sea observer program data are available or surveys of other fish habitats are
conducted, it is unlikely that there will be sufficient data to upgrade the assessment capabilities or to
determine status of these stocks. OFL values are established for these Category 3 stocks based on an
historical catch-based approach (e.g., average catch, depletion-corrected average catch, or depletion-based
stock reduction analysis) or qualitative information, including advice from the Council's advisory entities.
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
26
December 2023
Since there is greater scientific uncertainty for Category 3 stocks relative to Category 1 or 2 stocks, the
scientific uncertainty buffer for such stocks is generally greater than that recommended for Category 1 and
2 stocks. A P* approach can be used to determine the ABC. In such cases, the SSC recommends a value
for σ (sigma), which is typically larger than an associated σ for Category 1 or 2 stocks, and the Council
chooses the P* value to determine the size of the scientific uncertainty buffer. While other approaches for
determining the scientific uncertainty in calculating the OFL (i.e., determining the ABC) are allowed (see
below), only the P* approach has been used since implementation of the new harvest management
framework in 2011 under Amendment 23.
The following approaches can be considered for setting the ABC for Category 3 stocks:
•
•
Apply a buffer of 0.5 for Category 3 stocks or
Set the value of sigma for Category 3 stocks to four times the CV for Category 1 stocks. These
specific values are not based on a formal analysis of assessment outcomes and could change
substantially when the SSC reviews additional analyses.
These approaches for quantifying scientific uncertainty will be the default approaches for Category 3
species unless an SSC-recommended method is adopted by the Council during the biennial specification
process.
Ecosystem Component Stocks Without OFL Values
Ecosystem Component (EC) species do not require specification of reference points (i.e., OFLs, ABCs, and
ACLs) but are monitored to the extent that any new pertinent scientific information becomes available (e.g.,
catch trends, vulnerability, etc.) to determine changes in their status or their vulnerability to the fishery.
For this classification, such species should:
1. be a non-target species or stock;
2. not be determined to be subject to overfishing, approaching overfished, or overfished;
3. not be likely to become subject to overfishing or overfished, according to the best available
information, in the absence of conservation and management measures; and
4. not generally be retained for sale or personal use.
Categorizing FMP species as Category 1, 2 or 3 species may be done biennially in the specifications
decision process; however, recategorizing species as in the fishery or as EC species requires an FMP
amendment. A productivity and susceptibility assessment (Patrick, et al. 2009) can be done for FMP
species in the biennial specifications process to guide a decision on whether stocks are actively managed
with harvest specifications (i.e., Category 1, 2, or 3 stocks) or are monitored as EC species.
EC species include both those species exclusive to this FMP (Section 3.2) and those species shared between
all four of the Council’s FMPs (Section 3.3). EC species shared between all four FMPs may not become
the subject of directed commercial fisheries until and unless the Council has had an adequate opportunity
to both assess the scientific information relating to any proposed directed fishery and consider potential
impacts to existing fisheries, fishing communities, and the greater marine ecosystem. The Council may
have additional data and analysis requirements for changing the species categorization of EC species that
are shared between all four FMPs, beyond those requirements already applying to EC species specific to
the Groundfish FMP.
Shortbelly rockfish is an ecosystem component (EC) species. Shortbelly rockfish is one of the most
abundant rockfish species in the California Current Ecosystem (CCE) and is a key forage species for many
fish, birds, and marine mammals. The Council has adopted the process to track the bycatch of this species
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
27
December 2023
to assess potential fishery impacts on shortbelly stock. The Council shall review fishery-incurred mortality
of shortbelly rockfish during the routinely scheduled groundfish inseason agenda item. If the mortality
exceeds, or is projected to exceed, 2,000 mt in a calendar year, the Council shall review and investigate all
relevant information, including but not limited to, survey abundance trends and other stock status
information, changes in fishing behavior, and changes in the market interest for shortbelly rockfish.
In response to the review of the information, the Council will consider voluntary measures taken by the
fishing industry to reduce bycatch and consider other management measures including, but not limited to,
area closures, gear prohibitions, bycatch limits and seasonal restrictions as deemed necessary to reduce
shortbelly rockfish mortality. The Council may also reconsider the EC designation if appropriate.
[Amended: 11, 12, 16-1, 23, 25, 30]
4.5
Precautionary Thresholds and Overfishing Status Determination Criteria
The National Standard Guidelines define two thresholds that are necessary to maintain a stock at levels
capable of producing MSY: the MFMT and a MSST. These two limits are intended for use as reference
points to decide if a stock or stock complex is being overfished or is in an overfished state. The MFMT
and MSST are intrinsically linked through the MSY control rule, which specifies how fishing mortality or
catches could vary as a function of stock biomass in order to achieve yields close to MSY.
Determination of Precautionary Thresholds
The precautionary threshold is the biomass level at which point the harvest rate will be reduced to help the
stock return to the MSY level (see Section 4.6.1). The precautionary biomass threshold is in addition to
the overfishing and overfished/rebuilding thresholds required under the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MFMT
and MSST). The precautionary biomass threshold is higher than the overfished biomass MSST. Because
BMSY is a long-term average, biomass will by definition be below BMSY in some years and above BMSY in
other years. Thus, even in the absence of overfishing, biomass may decline to levels below BMSY due to
natural fluctuation. By decreasing harvest rates when biomass is below BMSY but maintaining the MSY
control rule (or proxy control rule) harvest rates for biomass levels above MSY, the precautionary threshold
and accompanying response effectively constitute a control rule that manages for harvests lower than MSY
and an average biomass above MSY.
The precautionary threshold is established only for Category 1 and 2 species since an estimate of stock
status is needed to understand if a stock is beyond the precautionary threshold. The precautionary threshold
is the BMSY level, if known. If the BMSY level is not known, the default precautionary threshold is 40 percent
of the estimated unfished biomass level for actively managed non-flatfish species and 25 percent of the
estimated unfished biomass level for actively managed flatfish stocks. The Council may recommend
different precautionary thresholds for any species or species group based on the best scientific information
about that species or group. It is expected the threshold will be between 25 percent and 50 percent of the
estimated unfished biomass level.
Determination of Overfishing Threshold
In this FMP, the term “overfishing” is used to denote situations where catch exceeds or is expected to
exceed the established OFL. The MFMT is simply the value(s) of fishing mortality in the MSY control
rule, which is used to calculate the OFL. Technically, exceeding FMSY constitutes overfishing; therefore,
exceeding the OFL is used in this FMP to constitute overfishing since all stocks classified as “in the fishery”
have specified OFLs.
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
28
December 2023
Determination of Overfished/Rebuilding Thresholds
The term “overfished” describes a stock whose abundance is below its overfished/rebuilding threshold, or
MSST. Overfished/rebuilding thresholds, in general, are linked to the same productivity assumptions that
determine the OFL levels. The default value of this threshold is 25 percent of the estimated unfished
biomass level for non-flatfish stocks or 50 percent of BMSY, if known. The MSST for flatfish stocks is 12.5
percent of the estimated unfished biomass level.
The default overfished/rebuilding threshold for Category 1 and 2 groundfish is 0.25BUNFISHED. The Council
may establish different thresholds for any species based on information provided in stock assessments, the
SAFE document, or other scientific or groundfish management-related report. For example, if BMSY is
known, the overfished threshold may be set equal to 50 percent of that amount. The Council may also
specify a lower level of abundance where catch or fishing effort is reduced to zero. This minimum
abundance threshold (BMIN) would correspond to an abundance that severely jeopardizes the stock’s ability
to recover to BMSY in a reasonable length of time.
[Amended: 11, 12, 16-1, 23]
4.6
Ending Overfishing and Rebuilding
Default Precautionary and Interim Rebuilding ACL Calculation
The precautionary threshold, defined in Section 4.5.1, is used to trigger a precautionary management
approach. If biomass declines to a level that requires rebuilding (below the MSST), the precautionary
management approach also provides an interim rebuilding harvest control policy to guide the setting of
ACL until the Council sets a new rebuilding policy specific to the conditions of the stock and fishery. The
default ACL/rebuilding policy can be described as an “ICES-type catch-based approach” that consists of a
modification of the catch policy, where catch (C) declines from C(FMSY) at the precautionary threshold in a
straight line to F=0 at the minimum abundance threshold of five percent (flatfish) or ten percent (nonflatfish) of the estimated mean unfished biomass (sometimes called pristine or virgin biomass or
reproductive potential). This approach could also be described as an ACL based on a variable FSPR that is
progressively more conservative at low biomass levels. The abbreviated name for this is the “40-10” default
adjustment for species managed to a B40% BMSY target (Figure 4-1) and, in the case of flatfish species that
are managed to a B25% target, the “25-5” adjustment (Figure 4-2). In most cases, there is inadequate
information to estimate FMSY; in such cases, the best proxy for FMSY will be used. The default proxy values
will be F30% for flatfish, F40% for whiting, F50% for rockfish and elasmobranchs, and F45% for other species
such as sablefish and lingcod. The Council anticipates scientific information about the population dynamics
of the various stocks will improve over time and that this information will result in improved estimates of
appropriate harvest rates and MSY proxies. Thus, these initial default proxy values will be replaced from
time to time. Such changes will not require an amendment to the FMP, but the scientific basis for new
values must be documented.
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
29
December 2023
OFL = FMSY x B
ABC = FMSY x B x P* buffer
ACL
10%
25%
40%
Depletion Level
Figure 4-1. Illustration of the default “40-10” ACL rule compared to OFL and ABC as adopted under
Amendment 23. This rule applies to all assessed non-flatfish species.
OFL = FMSY x B
ABC = FMSY x B x P* buffer
ACL
5%
12.5%
25%
Depletion Level
Figure 4-2. Illustration of the default “25-5” ACL rule compared to OFL and ABC as adopted under
Amendment 16-5. This rule only applies to assessed flatfish species.
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
30
December 2023
The greater amount of catch reduction applied below the precautionary threshold will foster a quicker return
to the MSY level. If a stock falls below its overfished/rebuilding threshold, this line would be used as the
interim rebuilding plan during the year until the Council develops a formal rebuilding plan. The point at
which the line intersects the horizontal axis does not necessarily imply zero catch would be allowed, but
rather is for determining the slope of the line.
In order to apply this default approach, a minimal amount of information is necessary; only Category 1 and
2 stocks with a quantitative assessment of estimated biomass can be managed in this way. For stocks with
inadequate information to apply this approach, the Council will strive to develop the information necessary
to estimate biomass and employ this harvest control mechanism if needed.
Procedures for Calculating Rebuilding Parameters
The Magnuson-Stevens Act and National Standard Guidelines provide a descriptive framework for
developing strategies to rebuild overfished stocks. This framework identifies three parameters: a minimum
time in which an overfished stock can rebuild to its target biomass (denoted TMIN), a maximum permissible
time period for rebuilding the stock to its target biomass (TMAX), and a target year, falling within the time
period between TMIN and TMAX and representing the year by which the stock can be rebuilt, as soon as
possible, taking into account the status and biology of the stock, the needs of fishing communities, and the
interaction of the stock of fish within the marine ecosystem (TTARGET).
TMIN, the lower limit of the specified time period for rebuilding, will be determined by the status and biology
of the stock or stock complex and its interactions with other components of the marine ecosystem or
environmental conditions, and is defined as the amount of time that would be required for rebuilding if
fishing mortality were eliminated entirely.
If TMIN is less than ten years, then the specified time period for rebuilding may be adjusted upward so that
the rebuilding period is as short as possible, taking into account the status and biology of the stock, the
needs of fishing communities, and the interaction of the stock of fish within the marine ecosystem, except
that no such upward adjustment may result in the specified time period exceeding ten years (which would
then constitute TMAX), unless management measures under an international agreement in which the United
States participates dictate otherwise.
If TMIN is ten years or greater, then the specified time period for rebuilding may be adjusted upward so that
the rebuilding period is as short as possible, taking into account the status and biology of the stock, the
needs of fishing communities, and the interaction of the stock of fish within the marine ecosystem, except
that no such upward adjustment can exceed the rebuilding period calculated in the absence of fishing
mortality, plus one mean generation time or equivalent period based on the species' life history
characteristics. For example, if a stock could be rebuilt within 12 years in the absence of any fishing
mortality, and has a mean generation time of eight years, the maximum allowable time to rebuild would be
20 years, which is TMAX.
The Council may consider a number of factors in determining the time period for rebuilding, including:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
The status and biology of the stock or stock complex.
Interactions between the stock or stock complex and other components of the marine ecosystem
or environmental conditions.
The needs of fishing communities.
Recommendations by international organizations in which the United States participates.
Management measures under an international agreement in which the United States
participates.
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
31
December 2023
Calculating Rebuilding Probabilities
Stock assessment results form the basis of a rebuilding analysis, which in turn is used to develop rebuilding
policies and choose the rebuilding parameters identified in each rebuilding plan. The elements of rebuilding
analyses are described in the SSC Terms of Reference for Rebuilding Analyses (PFMC 2016). This
guidance has been incorporated into a computer program (Punt 2002). In the analysis, the probability that
the overfished stock will reach its target biomass is determined with respect to TMIN, TMAX, and TTARGET.
The methods for calculating the values of these parameters are described below. This is a simplified
explanation of the current methodology; for example, equations and technical specifications are omitted.
The SSC may revise their terms of reference in the future as the computer program undergoes continued
refinement and elaboration.
The rebuilding analysis program uses “Monte Carlo simulation” to derive a probability estimate for a given
rebuilding strategy. This method projects population trajectories many times in separate simulations. It
accounts for possible variability by randomly choosing the value of key variables, most notably total annual
recruitment or annual recruits per spawner from a range of values. These values can be specified
empirically, by listing some set of historical values, or by a relationship based on a model. The SSC
recommends the default approach of projecting future recruitments in rebuilding analyses by drawing them
off of the stock-recruitment curve and including the level of annual recruitment variability used in the
underlying stock assessment model. Because of this variability in a key input value, each simulation will
show a different pattern of population growth. As a result, a modeled population may reach the target
biomass that defines a rebuilt stock (BMSY) in a different year in each of the simulations.
This technique is first used to calculate TMIN in probabilistic terms, which is defined as the time needed to
reach the target biomass in the absence of fishing with a 50 percent probability. In other words, in half the
simulations the target biomass was reached in some year up to and including the computed TMIN. Given
TMIN, TMAX is computed as 10 years or by adding the value of one mean generation time to TMIN, if TMIN is
greater than or equal to 10 years.
A target year, TTARGET, is set as a year at TMIN or greater, which does not exceed TMAX ,and which is as short
as possible, taking into account the status and biology of the stock, the needs of fishing communities, and
the interaction of the stock of fish within the marine ecosystem. Prior to Amendment 16-4, the Council set
TTARGET in part by considering the probability of rebuilding the stock by TMAX. The Council may continue
to review the probability of rebuilding the stock by TMAX given differing F rates, a reference parameter
known as “PMAX.” The Magnuson-Stevens Act, however, simply requires that rebuilding periods 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 (§304(e)(4)(A)(i)).
It is important to recognize that some of the terms introduced and described above represent policy decisions
at the national level and the Council does not have a choice in setting their values. The dates for TMIN and
TMAX are determined based on guidelines established at the national level. Mean generation time is a
biological characteristic that cannot be chosen by policymakers. Thus, the Council cannot choose these
values and then use them as a basis for management. Defined in national guidelines, TMIN is a consequence
of the productivity of the fish stock and is calculated by fishery biologists based on information they get
from a particular stock. Similarly, TMAX, which is calculated from TMIN, does not represent a Council choice.
Policy flexibility comes into play in determining TTARGET, or the time by which the stock is projected to
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
32
December 2023
rebuild. As explained earlier, the time to rebuild must be as short as possible, taking into account the status
and biology of the stock, the needs of fishing communities, and the interaction of the stock of fish within
the marine ecosystem. When developing a management strategy, the Council can choose a fishing mortality
rate and corresponding annual level of fishing. However, when rebuilding overfished species, the choice
of F is based on the value of TTARGET, keeping in mind that these values cannot be chosen independently of
one another. In other words, the Council may choose one value and derive the other from it, but they cannot
choose these values independently of the other.
Stock Rebuilding Plans
As required by the Magnuson-Stevens Act, within one year of being notified by the Secretary that a stock
is overfished or approaching a condition of being overfished, the Council will prepare a recommendation
to end the overfished condition and rebuild the stock(s) or to prevent the overfished condition from
occurring. For a stock that is overfished, the rebuilding plan will specify a time period for ending the
overfished condition and rebuilding the stock. Overfishing restrictions and recovery benefits should be
fairly and equitably allocated among sectors of the fishery.
Certain elements of a rebuilding plan developed by the Council, as specified in Section 4.6.3.2 (Contents
of Rebuilding Plans), will be submitted to the Secretary as an FMP amendment and implementing
regulations. Changes to key rebuilding plan elements will be accomplished through full (notice and
comment) rulemaking. Once approved by the Secretary, a rebuilding plan will remain in effect for the
specified duration of the rebuilding program, or until modified. The Council will make all approved
rebuilding plans available in the annual SAFE document or by other means. The Council may recommend
that the Secretary implement interim measures to reduce overfishing until the Council's program has been
developed and implemented.
The Council intends its stock rebuilding plans to provide targets, checkpoints, and guidance for rebuilding
overfished stocks to healthy and productive levels. They should provide a clear vision of the intended
results and the means to achieve those results. They will provide the strategies and objectives that
regulations are intended to achieve, and proposed regulations and results will be measured against the
rebuilding plans. It is likely that rebuilding plans will be revised over time to respond to new information,
changing conditions, and success or lack of success in achieving the rebuilding schedule and other goals.
If, in response to these revisions, the Council recommends changes to the management target for a particular
stock, such changes will be published through full (notice and comment) rulemaking as described in Section
6.2 of this FMP. As with all Council activities, public participation is critical to the development,
implementation and success of management programs.
Goals and Objectives of Rebuilding Plans
The overall goals of rebuilding programs are to (1) achieve the population size and structure that will
support the MSY within a specified time period that is as short as possible, taking into account the status
and biology of the stock, the needs of fishing communities, and the interaction of the stock of fish within
the marine ecosystem; (2) minimize, to the extent practicable, the adverse social and economic impacts
associated with rebuilding, including adverse impacts on fishing communities; (3) fairly and equitably
distribute both the conservation burdens (overfishing restrictions) and recovery benefits among
commercial, recreational, and charter fishing sectors; (4) protect the quantity and quality of habitat
necessary to support the stock at healthy levels in the future; and (5) promote widespread public awareness,
understanding and support for the rebuilding program. More specific goals and objectives may be
developed in the rebuilding plan for each overfished species.
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
33
December 2023
To achieve the rebuilding goals, the Council will strive to (1) explain the status of the overfished stock,
pointing out where lack of information and uncertainty may require that conservative assumptions be made
in order to maintain a risk-averse management approach; (2) identify present and historical harvesters of
the stock; (3) where adequate harvest sharing plans are not already in place, develop harvest sharing plans
for the rebuilding period and for when rebuilding is completed; (4) set harvest levels that will achieve the
specified rebuilding schedule; (5) implement any necessary measures to allocate the resource in accordance
with harvest sharing plans; (6) promote innovative methods to reduce bycatch and bycatch mortality of the
overfished stock; (7) monitor fishing mortality and use available stock assessment information to evaluate
the condition of the stock; (8) identify any critical or important habitat areas and implement measures to
ensure their protection; and (9) promote public education regarding these goals, objectives, and the
measures intended to achieve them.
Contents of Rebuilding Plans
Generally, rebuilding plans will contain:
1. A description of the biology and status of the overfished stock and fisheries affected by stock
rebuilding measures.
2. A description of how rebuilding parameters for the overfished stock were determined (including
any calculations that demonstrate the scientific validity of parameters).
3. Estimates of rebuilding parameters (BUNFISHED, BMSY, TMIN, TMAX, and the probability of reaching
target biomass by this date, and TTARGET) at the time of rebuilding plan adoption.
4. A description of the fishing communities’ needs that were considered at the time of adoption of the
plan.
5. The process, and any applicable standards, that will be used during periodic review to evaluate
progress in rebuilding the stock to the target biomass (see Section 4.6.3.6).
6. Any management measures the Council may wish to specifically describe in the FMP, which
facilitate stock rebuilding in the specified period. (These measures would be in addition to any
existing measures typically implemented through annual or biennial management. See Section
4.6.3.4 for more information.)
7. Any goals and objectives in addition to or different from those listed in the preceding section.
8. Potential or likely allocations among sectors.
9. For fisheries managed under international agreement, a discussion of how the rebuilding plan will
reflect traditional participation in the fishery, relative to other nations, by fishermen of the United
States.
10. Any other information that may be useful to achieve the rebuilding plan's goals and objectives.
The following questions also serve as a guide in developing rebuilding plans:
1. What is the apparent cause of the current condition (historical fishing patterns, a declining
abundance or recruitment trend, a change in assessment methodology, or other factors)?
2. Is there a downward trend in recruitment that may indicate insufficient compensation in the
spawner-recruitment relationship?
3. Based on a comparison of historical harvest levels (including discards) relative to recommended
ACLs, has there been chronic over-harvest?
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
34
December 2023
4. Is human-induced environmental degradation implicated in the current stock condition? Have
natural environmental changes been observed that may be affecting growth, reproduction, and/or
survival?
5. Would reduction in fishing mortality likely improve the condition of the stock?
6. What types of fishing communities rely on catch of this particular stock, or on catch of stocks that
co-occur with this stock?
7. Is the particular species caught incidentally with other species? Is it a major or minor component
in a mixed-stock complex?
8. What types of management measures are anticipated and/or appropriate to achieve the biological,
social, economic, and community goals and objectives of the rebuilding plan?
Rebuilding plan documents are distinct from the analytical documents required by the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other legal mandates, although they will reflect the contents of those
analyses in a much briefer form. Rebuilding plan elements incorporated into the FMP (see Appendix F))
summarize the contents enumerated in this section. Rebuilding plans as a whole will be updated in
Appendix F after their approval.
Any new rebuilding program will commence as soon as the first measures to rebuild the stock or stock
complex are implemented.
Fishing communities need a sustainable fishery that: is safe, well-managed, and profitable; provides jobs
and incomes; contributes to the local social fabric, culture, and image of the community; and helps market
the community and its services and products.
Process for Development and Approval of Rebuilding Plans
Upon receiving notification that a stock is overfished, the Council will identify one or more individuals to
draft the rebuilding plan. A draft of the plan will be reviewed and preliminary action taken (tentative
adoption or identification of preferred alternatives), followed by final adoption at a subsequent meeting.
The tentative plan or alternatives will be made available to the public and considered by the Council at a
minimum of two meetings, unless stock conditions suggest more immediate action is warranted. Upon
completing its final recommendations, the Council will submit the proposed rebuilding plan or revision to
an existing plan to NMFS for concurrence. A rebuilding plan will be developed following the standard
procedures for considering and implementing an FMP amendment (if necessary) under the MagnusonStevens Act and other applicable law.
The following elements in each rebuilding plan will be incorporated into the FMP in Appendix F and will
constitute the rebuilding plans for all overfished species. Appendix F will be modified as appropriate to
reflect the most recent rebuilding plan for each overfished species.
1.
2.
3.
A brief description of the status of the stock and fisheries affected by stock rebuilding measures at
the time the rebuilding plan was prepared.
The methods used to calculate stock rebuilding parameters, if substantially different from those
described in Section 4.6.2.
An estimate at the time the rebuilding plan was prepared of:
• unfished biomass (BUNFISHED or B0) and target biomass (BMSY);
• the year the stock would be rebuilt in the absence of fishing (TMIN);
• TMIN plus one mean generation time (TMAX); and
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
35
December 2023
the year in which the stock would be rebuilt based on the application of stock rebuilding
measures that achieve rebuilding as soon as possible, taking into account the status and biology
of the stock, the needs of fishing communities, and the interaction of the overfished stock
within the marine ecosystem (TTARGET).
A description of the harvest control rule (e.g., constant catch or harvest rate) and the specification
of this parameter. The types of management measures that will be used to constrain harvests to the
level implied by the control rule will also be described (see Appendix F). These two elements, the
harvest control rule and a description of management measures, represents the rebuilding strategy
intended to rebuild the stock by the target year.
•
4.
It is likely that over time the parameters listed above will change. It must be emphasized that the values
enumerated in the FMP represent estimates at the time the rebuilding plan is prepared. Therefore, the FMP
need not be amended if new estimates of these values are calculated. The values for these parameters found
in the FMP are for reference, so that managers and the public may track changes in the strategy used to
rebuild an overfished stock. However, any new estimates of the parameters listed above will be published
in the SAFE documents as they become available.
Updating Key Rebuilding Parameters
In addition to an initial specification in the FMP in Appendix F, the target year (TTARGET) and the harvest
control rule (type and numerical value) will also be specified in regulations. If new information indicates
a need to change the value of either of these two parameters, such a change will be accomplished through
full (notice and comment) rulemaking as described in Section 6.2 of this FMP and reflected in Appendix F.
The target year is the year by which the stock would be rebuilt to its target biomass. Therefore, if a
subsequent analysis identifies an earlier target year for the current fishing mortality rate (based on the
harvest control rule), there is no obligation to change in regulations either the target year (to the computed
earlier year) or the harvest control rule (to delay rebuilding to the original target year). Stock assessments
for overfished species are typically conducted every two years. Stock assessments and rebuilding analyses
use mathematical models to predict a stock’s current abundance, as well as project future abundance and
recruitment. In any mathematical model that uses a variety of data sources, as the stock assessments do,
model results tend to vary from one assessment to the next within some range of values. This expected
variation means that, when the Council and SSC review a new overfished species stock assessment and
rebuilding model, they must also consider whether the result of that model or models show a rebuilding
trajectory that varies from the previously-predicted trajectory to a significant degree. If the variation
between the stock assessments and rebuilding analyses for a particular species do not show significant
differences in the rebuilding trajectory for that species, the Council will likely not need to revise the TTARGET
or harvest control rule for that species. Since the target year is the key rebuilding parameter, it should only
be changed after careful deliberation. For example, the Council might recommend that the target year be
changed if, based on new information about the status and/or biology of the stock, they determine that the
existing target year is later than the recomputed maximum rebuilding time (TMAX) or if a recomputed harvest
control rule would result in such a low optimum yield as to cause substantial socioeconomic impacts. These
examples are not definitive: the Council may elect to change the target year because of other circumstances.
However, any change to the target year or harvest control rule must be supported by commensurate analysis
that demonstrates that the new target year will rebuild the stock as soon as possible, taking into account the
status and biology of the stock, the needs of fishing communities, and the interaction of the stock within
the marine ecosystem.
Implementation of Actions Required Under the Rebuilding Plan
NMFS will implement or adjust, with the adoption of the rebuilding plan, any management measures not
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
36
December 2023
already in effect that are necessary to implement the rebuilding plan. Many necessary measures may
already be in place through the standard management process. Because of the complex nature of the fishery
and the interaction of various stocks, regulations will need to be adjusted over the periods of the rebuilding
plans. Management measures will be adjusted, or new measures will be developed and implemented in the
future, in order to best implement each rebuilding plan throughout the life of that plan.
Once a rebuilding plan is adopted, certain measures required in the rebuilding plan may need to be
implemented through authorities and processes already described in the FMP. Management actions to
achieve OY harvest, and objectives related to rebuilding requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and
goals and objectives of the FMP (each of which may require a slightly different process) include: automatic
actions, notices, abbreviated rulemaking actions, and full rulemaking actions. (These actions are detailed
in Section 4.7, Chapter 5, and Section 6.2.) Allocation proposals require consideration as specified in the
allocation framework (see Section 6.3.1). Any proposed regulations to implement the rebuilding plan will
be developed in accordance with the framework procedures of this FMP.
Any rebuilding management measures that are not already authorized under the framework of the existing
FMP, or specified in the FMP consequent of rebuilding plan adoption, will be implemented by further FMP
amendments. These plan amendments may establish the needed measures or expand the framework to
allow the implementation of the needed measures under framework procedures.
The Council may designate a state or states to take the lead in working with its citizens to develop
management proposals to achieve stock rebuilding.
Periodic Review of Rebuilding Plans
Rebuilding plans will be reviewed periodically, but at least every two years, although the Council may
propose revisions to an adopted rebuilding plan at any time. These reviews will take into account the goals
and objectives listed in Section 4.6.3.1, recognizing that progress towards the first goal, to achieve the
population size and structure that will support MSY within the specified time period, will only be evaluated
on receipt of new information from the most recent stock assessment.
The Council, in consultation with the SSC and GMT, will determine on a case-by-case basis whether there
has been a significant change in a parameter such that the chosen management target must be revised. If,
based on this review, the Council decides that the harvest control rule or target year must be changed, the
procedures outlined in Section 4.6.3.3 will be followed. Regardless of the Council's schedule for reviewing
overfished species rebuilding plans, the Secretary of Commerce, through NMFS, is required to review the
progress of overfished species rebuilding plans toward rebuilding goals every two years, per the MagnusonStevens Act at 16 U.S.C. '304(e)(7).
Precedence of a Recovery Plan or “No Jeopardy” Standard Issued Pursuant to the
Endangered Species Act
Like rebuilding plans pursuant to National Standard 1 in the Magnuson-Stevens Act, a recovery plan
pursuant to the Endangered Species Act (ESA) outlines measures for the conservation and survival of the
designated species. Under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act an agency must consult NMFS when
any activity permitted, funded, or conducted by that agency may affect a listed marine species or its
designated critical habitat. (In the case of fishery management actions, NMFS is both the action and
consulting agency.) As part of these consultations, a biological opinion is produced describing standards
that must be met when permitting or implementing the action to ensure that the action is not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of the listed species; these are referred to as no jeopardy standards.
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
37
December 2023
Measures under a recovery plan or “no jeopardy” standards in a biological opinion will supersede rebuilding
plan measures and targets if they will result in the stock rebuilding to its target biomass by an earlier date
than the target year identified in the current rebuilding plan. (If expressed probabilistically, any ESA
standard expressed as a combination of date and probability that constitutes a higher standard will take
precedence over the equivalent target and probability in the rebuilding plan. For example, an ESA standard
requiring recovery by the rebuilding plan target year, but with a higher probability, would take precedence
over the rebuilding plan.) If a stock is de-listed before reaching its target biomass, the rebuilding plan will
come back into effect until such time as the stock is fully rebuilt.
[Amended: 11, 12, 16-1, 16-5, 23]
4.7
Determination of OY, ACL, and ACT
Optimum yield (OY) is defined in the Magnuson-Stevens Act as the amount of fish which will provide the
greatest overall benefit to the Nation, particularly with respect to food production and recreational
opportunities and taking into account the protection of marine ecosystems; that is prescribed on the basis
of the MSY from the fishery, as reduced by any relevant economic, social, or ecological factor; and, in the
case of an overfished fishery, that provides for rebuilding to a level consistent with producing the MSY in
such fishery. OY may be established at the stock or stock complex level, or at the fishery level. Achieving,
on a continuing basis, the “optimum yield from each fishery” means producing, from each stock, stock
complex, or fishery: a long-term series of catches such that the average catch is equal to the OY, overfishing
is prevented, the long-term average biomass is near or above BMSY, and overfished stocks and stock
complexes are rebuilt consistent with timing and other requirements of section 304(e)(4) of the MagnusonStevens Act. OYs are considered long-term harvest objectives and are not necessarily set every year or
during every biennial management cycle. The Magnuson-Stevens Act also specifies that OY is based on
MSY, and may be equal to or less than MSY. The FMP authorizes establishment of a numerical or nonnumerical OY for any groundfish species or species group and lays out the procedures the Council will
follow in determining appropriate numerical OY values. An OY may be specified for the fishery
management area as a whole or for specific subareas.
The ACL is a level of annual catch, which counts all sources of annual fishing-related mortality, including
discard mortalities, and is the harvest threshold used to manage west coast fisheries. The ACL is decided
in a manner to achieve OY without exceeding a specified ABC. ACLs are specified for each stock or stock
complex actively managed in the fishery and serves as the basis for invoking AMs. The ACL may not
exceed the ABC and may be set equal to the ABC if the Council and NMFS judge there are no reasons to
buffer the ABC to account for management uncertainty, socioeconomic concerns, ecological concern,
rebuilding concerns, etc. If ACLs are exceeded more often than one in four years, then AMs, such as catch
monitoring and inseason adjustments to fisheries, need to improve or additional AMs may need to be
implemented. Such additional AMs may include setting an annual catch target (ACT), which is a level of
harvest below the ACL. ACTs are annual accountability measures that are determined in the biennial
specifications process described in Section 5.4. The ACT may be especially important for a stock subject
to highly uncertain inseason catch monitoring. Unlike an ACL, the ACT can be exceeded annually. ACLs
are annual specifications that are determined in the biennial specifications process described in Section 5.4.
ACLs and ACTs can be specified for sectors of a fishery as well as for the entire fishery. In such cases, the
sector-specific ACLs and/or ACTs would sum to the ACL or ACT specified for the stock for the entire
fishery. Sector-specific ACLs may be decided for sectors with a formal, long-term allocation of the
harvestable surplus of a stock (see Section 6.3.2). A sector-specific ACT may serve as a harvest guideline
for a sector or used strategically in a rebuilding plan to attempt to reduce mortality of an overfished stock
more than the rebuilding plan limits prescribe.
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
38
December 2023
Total fishing mortality must be accounted for in the stock or stock complex ACL, including mortality
resulting from tribal fisheries, incidental open access fisheries (e.g., non-groundfish fisheries that impact
groundfish stocks), scientific research, and removals under EFPs. These types of mortality can be deducted
from either the ACL or ACT; this decision and the corresponding impacts are analyzed during the biennial
specifications process. In some instances, the Council may treat the ACT like the ACL and subtract the
off-the-top deductions from the ACT prior to determining sector allocations. In other cases, for example,
if sector-specific ACTs are used, then the off-the-top deductions may be taken from the ACL prior to
calculating the ACT.
Most of the 100-plus species managed by the FMP have never been assessed in either a quantitative or
qualitative manner. In some cases, even basic catch statistics are unavailable, because many species
(rockfish, for example) are not sorted unless specifically required by regulation. Species of this type have
generally not been subject to numerical harvest limits, but rather harvest is limited by gear restrictions and
market demand. Other management measures which determine the total amount of harvest each year
include trip landing and frequency limits. Those species without a specified OY and not included in a
multi-species OY will be included in a non-numerical OY, which is defined as all the fish that can be taken
under the regulations, specifications, and management measures authorized by the FMP and promulgated
by the U.S. Secretary of Commerce. This non-numerical OY is not a predetermined numerical value, but
rather the harvest that results from regulations, specifications, and management measures as they are
changed in response to changes in the resource and the fishery. In many cases, the absence of a numerical
specification reflects the absence of basic management information, such as abundance estimates and catch
statistics. The non-numerical OY concept allows for a variable amount of groundfish to be harvested
annually, limited by such constraints as gear restrictions, management measures for other species, and/or
absence of consumer acceptance or demand.
The close spatial relationship of many groundfish species throughout the management area results in
commercial and recreational catches often consisting of mixtures of several species. This is especially the
case in the trawl fishery where fishermen may target one species, but unavoidably harvest several other
species. In such cases, the optimum harvest strategy often is to target a group (complex or assemblage) of
groundfish species.
The Council will avoid allowing overfishing of individual stocks and control harvest mortality to allow
overfished stocks to rebuild to the MSY level. In the event the Council determines that greater long-term
benefits will be gained from the groundfish fishery by overfishing individual stocks or by preventing a
stock from recovering to its MSY level, it will justify the action in writing in accordance with the procedures
and standards identified in this section and the National Standard Guidelines (50 CFR 600.310(d)).
Conversely, the Council may determine that greater benefits will accrue from protecting an individual stock
by constraining the multiple species complex or specific components of that complex.
Reduction in catches or fishing rates for either precautionary or rebuilding purposes is an important
component of converting values of OFL to values of ACL. This relationship is specified by the ABC
harvest control rule, which accounts for scientific uncertainty in the determination of the OFL, and the ACL
harvest control rule. All ACLs will remain in effect until revised, and, whether revised or not, will be
announced at the beginning of the fishing period along with other specifications (see Chapter 5).
Groundfish stock assessments generally provide the following information to aid in determination of OFL
and ACL:
1. Current biomass (and reproductive potential) estimate.
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
39
December 2023
2. FMSY or proxy, translated into exploitation rate.
3. Estimate of MSY biomass (BMSY), or proxy, unfished biomass (based on average recruitment),
precautionary threshold, and/or overfished/rebuilding threshold.
4. Precision estimate (e.g., confidence interval) for current biomass estimate.
Determination of Numerical ACLs If Stock Assessment Information Is Available
from a Data-Rich Assessment (Category 1)
The Council will follow these steps in determining numerical ACLs. The recommended numerical ACL
values will include any necessary adjustments to harvest mortality needed to rebuild any stock determined
to be below its overfished/rebuilding threshold and may include adjustments to address uncertainty in the
status of the stock.
1. OFL: Multiply the current fishable biomass estimate times the FMSY exploitation rate or its proxy
to get OFL.
2. ABC: Determine an appropriate scientific uncertainty buffer to set the ABC below the OFL.
3. Precautionary adjustment: If the abundance is above the specified precautionary threshold, the ACL
will be equal to or less than ABC. If the current biomass estimate is less than the precautionary
threshold (Section 4.5.1), the harvest rate will be reduced according to the harvest control rule
specified in Section 4.6.1 in order to accelerate a return of abundance to optimal levels. If the
abundance falls below the overfished/rebuilding threshold (Section 4.5.3), the harvest control rule
will generally specify a greater reduction in exploitation as an interim management response toward
rebuilding the stock while a formal rebuilding plan is being developed. The rebuilding plan will
include a specific harvest control rule designed to rebuild the stock, and that control rule will be
used in this stage of the determination of the ACL.
4. Other adjustments to the ACL: Adjustments to an ACL for other social, economic, or ecological
considerations may be made. The ACL will be reduced for anticipated bycatch mortality (i.e.
mortality of discarded fish). Amounts of fish harvested as compensation for private vessels
participating in NMFS resource survey activities will also be deducted from ABC prior to setting
the ACL.
5. ACL recommendations will be consistent with established rebuilding plans and achievement of
their goals and objectives.
(a) In cases where overfishing is occurring, Council action will be sufficient to end
overfishing.
(b) In cases where a stock or stock complex is overfished, Council action will specify the ACL
in a manner that complies with rebuilding plans developed in accordance with Section
4.6.2.
(c) For fisheries managed under an international agreement, Council action must reflect
traditional participation in the fishery, relative to other nations, by fishermen of the United
States. This will allow the Council and Secretary of Commerce to consider domestic
regulations that will help address international overfishing in cases where that is occurring.
(d) For any stock that has been declared overfished, the open access/LE allocation shares may
be temporarily revised for the duration of the rebuilding period by amendment to the
regulations in accordance with the normal allocation process described in this FMP.
However, the Council may at any time recommend the shares specified in Chapter 12 of
this FMP be reinstated without requiring further analysis. Once reinstated, any change may
be made only through the allocation process.
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
40
December 2023
(e) For any stock that has been declared overfished, any vessel with a LE permit may be
prohibited from operating in the open access fishery when the LE fishery has been closed.
6. Adjustments to an ACL could include increasing the ACL above the default value up to the ABC
level as long as the management still allows achievement of established rebuilding goals and
objectives. In limited circumstances, these adjustments could include increasing the ACL above
the overfishing level as long as the harvest meets the standards of the mixed stock exception in the
National Standard Guidelines:
1. The Council demonstrates by analysis that such action will result in long-term net benefits
to the Nation.
2. The Council demonstrates by analysis that mitigating measures have been considered and
that a similar level of long-term net benefits cannot be achieved by modifying fleet
behavior, gear selection/configuration, or other technical characteristic in a manner such
that no overfishing would occur.
3. The resulting rate or level of fishing mortality will not cause any species or evolutionarily
significant unit thereof to require protection under the Endangered Species Act.
7. Exceptions to the requirement to prevent overfishing could apply under certain limited
circumstances. Harvesting one stock at its optimum level may result in overfishing of another stock
when the two stocks tend to be caught together (this can occur when the two stocks are part of the
same fishery or if one is bycatch in the other's fishery). Before the Council and NMFS may decide
to allow this type of overfishing, an analysis must be performed and the analysis must contain a
justification in terms of overall benefits, including a comparison of benefits under alternative
management measures, and an analysis of the risk of any stock or stock complex falling below its
MSST. The Council may decide to allow this type of overfishing if the fishery is not overfished
and the analysis demonstrates that all of the following conditions are satisfied:
(a) Such action will result in long-term net benefits to the Nation.
(b) Mitigating measures have been considered and it has been demonstrated that a similar level
of long-term net benefits cannot be achieved by modifying fleet behavior, gear
selection/configuration, or other technical characteristic in a manner such that no
overfishing would occur; and
(c) The resulting rate of fishing mortality will not cause any stock or stock complex to fall
below its MSST more than 50 percent of the time in the long term, although it is recognized
that persistent overfishing is expected to cause the affected stock to fall below its BMSY
more than 50 percent of the time in the long term.
8. For species complexes (such as the rockfish complexes), the ACL will generally be set equal to the
sum of the individual component ACLs, as appropriate.
Determination of a Numerical ACL If OFL Is Based on a Data-Moderate
Quantitative Assessment (Category 2)
1. OFL may be based on an assessment conducted using an approved data-moderate assessment
method or judged by the SSC as failing to meet data-rich criteria.
2. ABC: Determine an appropriate scientific uncertainty buffer to set the ABC below the OFL.
3. Precautionary adjustments, if any, would be based on relevant information. In general, the Council
will follow a risk-averse approach and may recommend an ACL below ABC if there is a perception
the stock is below its MSY biomass level or to accommodate management uncertainty,
socioeconomic concerns, or other considerations. If a declining trend persists for more than three
years, then a focused evaluation of the status of the stock, its OFL, and the overfishing parameters
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
41
December 2023
will be quantified. If data are available, such an evaluation should be conducted at approximately
five-year intervals even when negative trends are not apparent. In fact, many stocks are in need of
re-evaluation to establish a baseline for monitoring of future trends. Whenever an evaluation
indicates the stock may be declining and approaching an overfished state, then the Council should:
(a) Recommend improved data collection for this species.
(b) Determine the rebuilding rate that would increase the multispecies value of the fishery.
4. Uncertainty adjustment: In cases where there is a high degree of uncertainty about the condition of
the stock or stocks, ACL may be reduced accordingly.
5. Amounts of fish harvested as compensation for industry research activities will also be deducted.
6. These adjustments could include increasing ACL above the default value as indicated for Category
1 stocks, items 5 and 6 above.
Determination of a Numerical ACL If OFL Is Based on a Data-Poor Assessment
(Category 3)
Fish of these species are incidentally landed and usually are not listed separately in fish landing receipts.
Information from fishery-independent surveys is often lacking for these stocks, because of their low
abundance or they are not vulnerable to survey sampling gear. Until sufficient quantities of at-sea observer
program data are available or surveys of other fish habitats are conducted and/or requirements that landings
of all species be recorded separately, it is unlikely that there will be sufficient data to upgrade the assessment
capabilities or to evaluate the overfishing potential of these stocks.
These species typically have OFL values based on an historical catch-based approach (e.g., average catch,
depletion-corrected average catch, or depletion-based stock reduction analysis), often from a species
composition estimate of landings from port sampling, and a precautionary reduction of the ABC and ACL
generally greater than that specified for Category 2 species. Another approach typically used for deciding
the OFL value for a Category 3 species is based on a fishing mortality rate (F) associated with the species
estimated or assumed natural mortality rate (M); such as F = .75M.
Most Category 3 species are managed in a stock complex, where harvest specifications are set for the
complex in its entirety. “Stock complex” means a group of stocks that are sufficiently similar in geographic
distribution, life history, and vulnerabilities to the fishery such that the impact of management actions on
the stocks is similar. At the time a stock complex is established, the FMP should provide a full and explicit
description of the proportional composition of each stock in the stock complex, to the extent possible.
Stocks may be grouped into complexes for various reasons, including where stocks in a multispecies fishery
cannot be targeted independent of one another and MSY cannot be defined on a stock-by-stock basis (see
paragraph (e)(1)(iii) of this section); where there is insufficient data to measure their status relative to SDC;
or when it is not feasible for fishermen to distinguish individual stocks among their catch. The vulnerability
of stocks to the fishery should be evaluated when determining if a particular stock complex should be
established or reorganized, or if a particular stock should be included in a complex. Stock complexes may
be comprised of: one or more indicator stocks, each of which has SDC and ACLs, and several other stocks;
several stocks without an indicator stock, with SDC and an ACL for the complex as a whole; or one of
more indicator stocks, each of which has SDC and management objectives, with an ACL for the complex
as a whole.
An indicator stock is a stock with measurable SDC that can be used to help manage and evaluate more
poorly-known stocks that are in a stock complex. If an indicator stock is used to evaluate the status of a
complex, it should be representative of the typical status of each stock within the complex, due to similarity
in vulnerability. If the stocks within a stock complex have a wide range of vulnerability, they should be
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
42
December 2023
reorganized into different stock complexes that have similar vulnerabilities; otherwise the indicator stock
should be chosen to represent the more vulnerable stocks within the complex. In instances where an
indicator stock is less vulnerable than other members of the complex, management measures need to be
more conservative so that the more vulnerable members of the complex are not at risk from the fishery.
More than one indicator stock can be selected to provide more information about the status of the complex.
When indicator stock(s) are used, periodic re-evaluation of available quantitative or qualitative information
(e.g., catch trends, changes in vulnerability, fish health indices, etc.) is needed to determine whether a stock
is subject to overfishing, or is approaching (or in) an overfished condition.
[Amended: 11, 16-1, 17, 23]
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
43
December 2023
CHAPTER 5
PERIODIC SPECIFICATION AND
APPORTIONMENT OF HARVEST LEVELS
The ability to establish and adjust harvest levels is the first major tool at the Council's disposal to exercise
its resource stewardship responsibilities. Each biennial fishing period, the Council will assess the
biological, social, and economic condition of the Pacific Coast groundfish fishery and update MSY
estimates or proxies for specific stocks (management units) where new information on the population
dynamics is available. The Council will make this information available to the public in the form of the
SAFE document or the NEPA document used to analyze new harvest specifications and management
measures described in Section 5.2. Based upon the best scientific information available, the Council will
evaluate the current level of fishing relative to the MSY level for stocks where sufficient data are available.
Estimates of the OFL for major stocks will be developed, as well as an ABC that accounts for the scientific
uncertainty of the stock’s estimated biomass. The Council will identify those species or species groups
which it proposes to be managed by the establishment of numerical harvest levels (OYs, ACLs, ACTs,
harvest guidelines [HGs], or quotas). For those stocks judged to be below their overfished/rebuilding
threshold, the Council will develop a stock rebuilding management strategy.
The process for specification of numerical harvest levels includes the estimation of OFL, an ABC
specification set below the OFL to account for scientific uncertainty, the establishment of OYs and ACLs
for various stocks (may be set equal to the ABC), and the calculation of specified allocations between
harvest sectors. The specification of numerical harvest levels described in this chapter is the process of
designating and adjusting overall numerical limits for a stock either throughout the entire fishery
management area or throughout specified subareas. The process normally occurs biennially between
November and June, but can occur under specified circumstances at other times of the fishing year. The
Council will identify those ACLs which should be designated for allocation between LE and open access
sectors of the commercial industry. Other numerical limits which allocate the resource or which apply to
one segment of the fishery and not another would be imposed through one of the management measures
processes at either 6.2 C or D in Chapter 6.
The NMFS Regional Administrator will review the Council's recommendations, supporting rationale,
public comments, and other relevant information, and, if it is approved, will undertake the appropriate
method of implementation. Rejection of a recommendation will be explained in writing.
The procedures specified in this chapter do not affect the authority of the U.S. Secretary of Commerce
(Secretary) to take emergency regulatory action as provided for in Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens
Act if an emergency exists involving any groundfish resource or to take such other regulatory action as may
be necessary to discharge the Secretary's responsibilities under Section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens
Act.
This chapter describes the steps in this process.
[Amended: 5, 12, 16-1, 17, 18]
5.1
General Overview of the Harvest Specifications and Management Process
The specifications and management process, in general terms, occurs as follows:
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
45
December 2023
1. The Council will determine the MSY or MSY proxy and OFL for each major stock. Typically, the
MSY proxy will be in terms of a fishing mortality rate (Fx%,) and OFL will be the Fx% applied to
the current biomass estimate. The MSY is the maximum long-term average yield expected from
annual application of the MSY (or proxy) harvest policy under prevailing ecological and
environmental conditions.
2. The Council and SSC will determine an appropriate scientific uncertainty buffer to set the ABC
below the OFL. The ABC accommodates the uncertainty in estimating the OFL and may be
determined using either a straight percentage reduction of the OFL as recommended by the SSC or
by the P* approach.
3. Every species will either have its own designated ACL or be included in a multispecies ACL.
Species which are included in a multispecies ACL may also have individual ACLs, have individual
HGs, or be included in a HG for a subgroup of the multispecies ACL.
4. To determine the ACL for each stock, the Council will determine the best estimate of current
abundance and its relation to its precautionary and overfished thresholds. If the abundance is above
the precautionary threshold, the ACL will be equal to or less than the ABC. If abundance falls
below the precautionary threshold, the ACL will be reduced according to the harvest control rule
for that stock. If abundance falls below the overfished/rebuilding threshold, the ACL will be set
according to the interim rebuilding rule until the Council develops a formal rebuilding plan for that
species.
5. For any stock or stock complex where the Secretary identifies that overfishing is occurring, the
Council will take remedial action to end overfishing and prevent the stock or stock complex from
falling below the minimum stock size threshold. For any stock the Secretary has declared
overfished or approaching the overfished condition, or for any stock the Council determines is in
need of rebuilding, the Council will implement such periodic management measures as are
necessary to rebuild the stock by controlling harvest mortality, habitat impacts, or other effects of
fishing activities that are subject to regulation under this biennial process. These management
measures will be consistent with any approved rebuilding plan.
6. The Council may reserve and deduct a portion of the ACL of any stock to provide for compensation
for vessels conducting scientific research authorized by NMFS. Prior to the research activities, the
Council will authorize amounts to be made available to a research reserve. However, the deduction
from the ACL will be made in the year after the “compensation fishing”; the amounts deducted
from the ACL will reflect the actual catch during compensation fishing activities.
7. The Council will identify stocks which are likely to be fully harvested (i.e., the ACL or ACT/HG
achieved) in the absence of specific management measures and for which allocation between LE
and open access sectors of the fishery is appropriate.
8. The groundfish resource is fully utilized by U.S. fishing vessels and seafood processors. The
Council may entertain applications for foreign or joint venture fishing or processing at any time,
but fishing opportunities may be established only through amendment to this FMP. This section
supersedes other provisions of this FMP relating to foreign and joint venture fishing.
Notwithstanding the above, the harvest controls from the previous biennium (referred to as default harvest
control rules, or default HCRs) are applied to the best available scientific information to determine the
numerical values of the harvest specifications for the next biennial period. The default HCR would establish
the harvest specifications based on the FMSY (or proxy value) used in the previous biennium applied to the
best current estimate of stock biomass to determine the OFL (as in bullet #1). The ABC is determined by
applying the uncertainty buffer (as in bullet #2) used in the previous biennium except that if the P* approach
was used, the same P* value used in the previous biennium is applied. The ACL is determined as described
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
46
December 2023
in bullet #4 using the appropriate method for current stock status, if known. Thus, if based on the best
available science, it is determined that stock status has changed from healthy to the precautionary zone, the
methods outlined in Section 4.6.1 would be applied. If a stock has recovered such that stock size is now
above the MSY biomass target, the default harvest control sets the ACL equal to the ABC using the same
P* value used in the previous biennium, if applicable. If the status has not changed or is unknown, the
same method used in the previous cycle is used to compute the default HCR. This includes cases where a
constant catch HCR was used in the previous cycle to set the ACL below the ABC, in which case the same
constant catch numerical value is used as the default ACL for the next biennial cycle. In the case of a stock
managed under a rebuilding plan, the default HCR is the one described in the current rebuilding plan (see
Appendix F). The SSC will advise the Council on whether adequate progress toward ending overfishing
and rebuilding the affected fish stock is being made.
For any stock (or other management units) the Council may take action to depart from the default harvest
control rules described in the previous paragraph, after considering the harvest specifications or other
relevant factors as long as such changes are consistent with the framework described in Chapter 4 of this
FMP, the MSA, and other applicable law.
Current harvest control rules (and related harvest policies as applicable) will be listed in the SAFE
document, which will be presented to the Council and the public (and in Appendix F for stocks managed
under rebuilding plans).
[Amended: 5, 12, 16-1, 17, 23, 24]
5.2
SAFE Document/Biennial Specifications and Management Measures NEPA
Document
For the purpose of providing the best available scientific information to the Council for evaluating the status
of the fisheries relative to the MSY and overfishing definition, developing OFLs, determining the need for
individual species or species group management, setting and adjusting numerical harvest levels, assessing
social and economic conditions in the fishery, and updating the appendices of this FMP; a SAFE document
or a NEPA document (e.g., EIS or EA) is prepared every other year when biennial harvest specifications
and management measures are decided. Not all species and species groups can be reevaluated every other
year due to limited state and Federal resources. However, the SAFE or the biennial specifications and
management measures NEPA document will in general contain the following information:
1. A report on the current status of Washington, Oregon, and California groundfish resources by major
species or species group.
2. Specify and update estimates of harvest control rule parameters for those species or species groups
for which information is available. (The Council anticipates scientific information about the
population dynamics of the various stocks will improve over time and that this information will
result in improved estimates of appropriate harvest rates and MSY proxies. Thus, initial default
proxy values will be replaced from time to time. Such changes will not require amendment to the
FMP, but the scientific basis for new values must be documented.)
3. Estimates of MSY and OFL for major species or species groups.
4. Catch statistics (landings and value) for commercial, recreational, and charter sectors.
5. Recommendations of species or species groups for individual management by ACLs.
6. A brief history of the harvesting sector of the fishery, including recreational sectors.
7. A brief history of regional groundfish management.
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
47
December 2023
8. A summary of the most recent economic information available, including number of vessels and
economic characteristics by gear type.
9. Other relevant biological, social, economic, ecological, and essential fish habitat information which
may be useful to the Council.
10. A description of the MFMT and the MSST for each stock or stock complex, along with other
information the Council may use to determine whether overfishing is occurring or a stock or stock
complex is overfished. (The default overfished/rebuilding threshold for most Category 1
groundfish is 0.25BUNFISHED or 0.125 BUNFISHED for assessed flatfish species. The Council may
establish different thresholds for any species based on information provided in stock assessments,
the SAFE document, or other scientific or groundfish management-related reports.)
11. A description of any rebuilding plans currently in effect, a summary of the information relevant to
the rebuilding plans, and any management measures proposed or currently in effect to achieve the
rebuilding plan goals and objectives.
12. A list of annual specifications and management measures that have been designated as routine
under processes described in the FMP at Section 6.2.1.
Under a biennial specifications and management measures process, elements 2, 5, 6, 7, and 11 would not
need to be included in a SAFE document in years when the Council is not setting specifications and
management measures for an upcoming biennial fishing period. The stock assessment section of the SAFE
or NEPA document is normally completed when the most current stock assessment and fisheries
performance information is available and prior to the meeting at which the Council approves its final
management recommendations for the upcoming biennial fishing period. The Council will announce the
availability of the stock assessment section of the SAFE or NEPA document to the public by such means
as mailing lists or newsletters, and will provide copies upon request. The fishery evaluation section of the
SAFE or NEPA document may be prepared after the Council has made its final recommendations for the
upcoming biennial fishing period and will include the final recommendations, including summaries of
rebuilding plans and an estimate of the previous year's catch. Availability will be similarly announced and
copies made available upon request.
[Amended: 5, 12, 13, 16-1, 17, 23]
5.3
Authorization and Accounting for Fish Taken as Compensation for Authorized
Scientific Research Activities.
At a Council meeting, NMFS will advise the Council of upcoming resource surveys that would be
conducted using private vessels with groundfish as whole or partial compensation. For each proposal,
NMFS will identify the maximum number of vessels expected or needed to conduct the survey, an estimate
of the species and amounts of compensation fish likely to be needed to compensate vessels for conducting
the survey, when the fish would be taken, and when the fish would be deducted from the ABC in
determining the ACL/harvest guideline. NMFS will initiate a competitive solicitation to select vessels to
conduct resource surveys. NMFS will consult with the Council regarding the amounts and types of
groundfish species to be used to support the surveys. If the Council approves NMFS' proposal, NMFS may
proceed with awarding the contracts, taking into account any modifications requested by the Council. If the
Council does not approve the proposal to use fish as compensation to pay for resource surveys, NMFS will
not use fish as compensation.
Because the species and amounts of fish used as compensation will not be determined until the contract is
awarded, it may not be possible to deduct the amount of compensation fish from the ABC or harvest
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
48
December 2023
guideline in the year that the fish are caught. Therefore, the compensation fish will be deducted from the
ABC the year or biennial fishing period after the fish are harvested. During the specification and
management measures process, NMFS will announce the total amount of fish caught during the year or
biennial fishing period as compensation for conducting a resource survey, which then will be deducted from
the following year's ABCs in setting the ACLs.
[Amended: 11, 17, 23]
5.4
Biennial Implementation Procedures for Specifications and Management
Measures
Biennially, the Council will develop recommendations for the specification of OFLs, ABCs, ACLs, and
any ACTs or quotas over the span of three Council meetings. In addition, during this process the Council
may recommend establishment of ACTs, HGs and/or quotas for species or species groups within an ACL.
Depending on stock assessment availability and fishery management interactions with Canada, the Council
may also develop recommendations for the specification of the Pacific whiting ABC/OY and quotas in a
separate, annual process governed by the Pacific whiting treaty.
The Council will develop preliminary recommendations at the first of three meetings (usually in November)
based upon the best stock assessment information available to the Council at the time and consideration of
public comment. After the first meeting, the Council will provide a summary of its preliminary
recommendations and their basis to the public through its mailing list, as well as providing copies of the
information at the Council office and to the public upon request. The Council will notify the public of its
intent to develop final recommendations at its third meeting (usually in June) and solicit public comment
both before and at its second meeting.
At its second and/or third meeting, the Council will again consider the best available stock assessment
information which should be contained in the recently completed SAFE report or preliminary NEPA
documents and consider public testimony before adopting final recommendations to the Secretary.
Following the third meeting, the Council will submit its recommendations along with the rationale and
supporting information to the Secretary for review and implementation.
Upon receipt of the Council's recommendations supporting rationale and information, the Secretary will
review the submission, and, if it is sufficient for public review, publish a proposed rule in the Federal
Register, making the Council’s recommendations available for public comment and agency review.
Following the public comment period on the proposed rule, the Secretary will review the proposed rule,
taking into account any comments or additional information received, and will publish a final rule in the
Federal Register, possibly modified from the proposed rule in accordance with the Secretary’s
consideration of the proposed rule. All OFLs, ABCs, ACLs, OYs, and any ACTs, HGs, or quotas will
remain in effect until revised, and, whether revised or not, will be announced at the beginning of the biennial
fishing period along with other specifications.
In the event that the Secretary disapproves one or more of the Council's recommendations, he may
implement those portions approved and notify the Council in writing of the disapproved portions along with
the reasons for disapproval. The Council may either provide additional rationale or information to support
its original recommendation, if required, or may submit alternative recommendations with supporting
rationale. In the absence of an approved recommendation at the beginning of the biennial fishing period,
the current specifications in effect at the end of the previous biennial fishing period will remain in effect
until modified, superseded, or rescinded.
[Amended: 5, 11, 17, 23]
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
49
December 2023
5.5
Inseason Procedures for Establishing or Adjusting Specifications
Inseason Adjustments to OFLs, ABCs, and ACLs
Under the biennial specifications and management measures process, stock assessments for most species
will become available every other year, prior to the November Council meeting that begins the threemeeting process for setting specifications and management measures. The November Council meeting that
begins that three-meeting process will be the November of the first fishing year in a biennial fishing period.
If the Council determines that any of the OFLs, ABCs ACLs, or OYs set in the prior management process
are not adequately conservative to meet rebuilding plan goals for an overfished species, harvest
specifications for that overfished species and/or for co-occurring species may be revised for the second
fishing year of the then-current biennial management period.
Beyond this process, OFLs, ABCs, ACLs, OYs, ACTs, HGs, and quotas may only be modified in cases
where a harvest specification announced at the beginning of the biennial fishing period is found to have
resulted from incorrect data or from computational errors. If the Council finds that such an error has
occurred, it may recommend the Secretary publish a notice in the Federal Register revising the incorrect
harvest specification at the earliest possible date. §
Inseason Establishment and Adjustment of ACLs, OYs, HGs, and Quotas
ACLs, OYs ACTs, and HGs or quotas may be established and adjusted inseason (1) for resource
conservation through the “points of concern” framework described in Section 6.2.2; (2) in response to a
technical correction to OFL described above; or, (3) under the socioeconomic framework described in
Section 6.2.3.
Quotas may be established and adjusted inseason only for resource conservation or in response to a technical
correction to OFL. These constraints on establishing and adjusting ACLs, OYs, ACTs, HGs, and quotas
do not apply to the process for establishing and adjusting off the top deductions, which is provided in
Section 4.7, or sector-specific catch limits, which is provided in Section 6.5.3.2.
[Amended: 11, 17, 18, 23]
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
50
December 2023
CHAPTER 6
6.1
MANAGEMENT MEASURES
Introduction
The FMP, as amended, establishes the fishery management program, the process, and procedures the
Council will follow in making adjustments to that program. It also sets the limits of management authority
of the Council and the Secretary when acting under the FMP. The preceding two chapters describe the
procedures for determining appropriate harvest levels and establishing them on a periodic basis. This
chapter describes the procedures and methods that may be used to directly control fishing activities so that
total catch of a given species or species group does not exceed specified harvest limits. It is organized
around five major themes:
•
Section 6.2 describes the procedures for establishing and adjusting management measures,
including three decision-making frameworks the Council (in conjunction with its advisory bodies)
uses to decide whether management measures need adjustment. These framework procedures
allow management decisions, as long as they are consistent with the provisions of this FMP
(including the frameworks), to be implemented via Federal regulation without first amending the
FMP. This section also describes the procedures for promulgating the regulations needed to
implement the management measures authorized by this FMP.
•
Section 6.3 describes the criteria the Council will consider when establishing management
measures intended to directly allocate harvest opportunity.
•
Sections 6.4 and 6.5 describe methods to account for all sources of fishing mortality and to reduce
bycatch, especially bycatch mortality. Bycatch is defined in the Magnuson-Stevens Act as “fish
which are harvested in a fishery, but which are not sold or kept for personal use, and includes
economic discards and regulatory discards” (16 U.S.C. 1802(2)). Section 6.4 also describes those
additional measures necessary to monitor and/or report on fishery catch and effort or to enforce
regulations.
•
Section 6.6 through Error! Reference source not found. inventory the range of management
measures available to the Council, as authorized by this FMP. Not all of these management
measures will be implemented at any given time.
•
Section 6.10 describes those requirements that support the enforcement of management measures.
These procedures, measures, and requirements must be consistent with the goals and objectives of the FMP,
the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law. All measures, unless otherwise specified, apply to
all domestic vessels regardless of whether catch is landed and processed on shore or processed at sea. The
procedures by which the Council develops recommendations on revising management measures, and by
which NMFS implements those recommendations, are found in Section 6.2.
Overview of Management Measures for West Coast Groundfish Fisheries
In the early stages of fishery development, there is generally little concern with management strategies. As
fishing effort increases, management measures become necessary to prevent overfishing and the resulting
adverse biological, social and economic impacts. Although recruitment, growth, natural mortality, and
fishing mortality affect the size of fish populations, fishery managers only have control over one of these
factors—fishing mortality. The principal measures available to the Council to control fishing mortality of
the groundfish fisheries in the Washington, Oregon, and California region are:
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
51
December 2023
•
Measures to reduce bycatch and bycatch mortality – described in 6.5.
•
Defining authorized fishing gear and regulating the configuration and deployment of fishing gear,
including mesh size in nets and escape panels or ports in traps—described in Section 6.6.
•
Restricting catches by defining prohibited species and establishing landing, trip frequency, bag,
and size limits—described in Section 6.7.
•
Establishing fishing seasons and closed areas—described in Section 6.8.
•
Limiting fishing capacity or effort through permits, licenses and endorsements, and quotas, or by
means of input controls on fishing gear, such as restrictions on trawl size/shape or longline length
or number of hooks or pots—described in Section Error! Reference source not found.. Fishing
capacity may be further limited through programs that reduce participation in the fishery by retiring
permits and/or vessels.
Although this chapter only discusses in detail the types of management measures outlined above, the
Council may recommend and NMFS may implement other useful management measures through the
appropriate rulemaking process, as long as they are consistent with the criteria and general procedures
contained in this FMP.
[Amendment 18]
6.2
General Procedures for Establishing and Adjusting Management Measures
This FMP establishes three framework procedures through which the Council is able to recommend the
establishment and adjustment of specific management measures for the Pacific Coast groundfish fishery.
The points of concern framework allows the Council to develop management measures that respond to
resource conservation issues; the socioeconomic framework allows the Council to develop management
measures in response to social, economic, and ecological issues that affect fishing communities. The
habitat conservation framework allows the Council to modify the number, extent, and location of areas
closed to certain fishing gear or methods, in order to protect EFH. Criteria associated with each framework
form the basis for Council recommendations, and Council recommendations will be consistent with them.
The process for developing and implementing management measures normally will occur over the span of
at least two Council meetings, with an exception that provides for more timely Council consideration under
certain specific conditions.
The time required to take action under any framework will vary depending on the nature of the action, its
impacts on the fishing industry, resource, and environment, and review of these impacts by interested
parties. This depends on the range of biological, social, and economic impacts that may need to be
considered at the time a particular change in regulations is proposed. Furthermore, other applicable law
(e.g., the National Environmental Policy Act, Administrative Procedures Act, Regulatory Flexibility Act,
relevant Executive Orders, etc.) may require additional analysis and public comment before measures may
be implemented by the Secretary.
The Secretary will develop management measures recommended by the Council for review and public
comment as publications in the Federal Register, either as notices or regulations. Generally, management
measures of broad applicability and permanent effectiveness should be published as regulations. More
narrowly applicable measures, which may only apply for short duration (one biennium or less) and may
also require frequent adjustment, should be published as notices.
Management measures are normally imposed, adjusted, or removed at the beginning of the biennial fishing
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
52
December 2023
period, but may, if the Council determines it necessary, be imposed, adjusted, or removed at any time during
the period. Management measures may be imposed for habitat protection, resource conservation, or social
or economic reasons consistent with the criteria, procedures, goals, and objectives set forth in the FMP.
The NMFS Regional Administrator will review the Council’s recommendation, supporting rationale, public
comments, and other relevant information and determine whether to approve, disapprove, or partially
approve the Council’s recommendation. If the recommendation is approved, NMFS will implement the
recommendation through regulation or notice, as appropriate. NMFS will explain any disapproval or partial
disapproval of the recommendation to the Council in writing.
The procedures specified in this chapter do not affect the authority of the Secretary to take emergency
regulatory action as provided for in Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act if an emergency exists
involving any groundfish resource, or to take such other regulatory action as may be necessary to discharge
the Secretary’s responsibilities under Section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
Four different categories of management actions are authorized by this FMP, each of which requires a
slightly different process. Management measures may be established, adjusted, or removed using any of
the four procedures. The four basic categories of management actions are described below.
A. Automatic Actions
The NMFS Regional Administrator may initiate automatic management actions without prior public notice,
opportunity to comment, or a Council meeting. These actions are nondiscretionary, and the impacts must
be reasonably accountable, based on previous application of the action or past analysis. Examples include
fishery, season, or gear type closures when a quota has been projected to have been attained. The Secretary
will publish a single notice in the Federal Register making the action effective.
B. Notice Actions requiring One Federal Register Notice: One Council meeting or NMFS actions
that occur outside of a Council meeting
These include all management actions other than automatic actions. Notice actions may be
nondiscretionary; they may be actions for which the scope of probable impacts has been previously
analyzed.
These actions are intended to have temporary effect, and the expectation is that they will need frequent
adjustment. They may be recommended either at a single Council meeting or by NMFS outside of a Council
meeting for actions in California impacting canary rockfish, yelloweye rockfish, and black rockfish. The
Council will provide as much advance information to the public as possible concerning the issues it will be
considering at its decision meeting. The primary examples are those inseason management actions defined
as routine according to the criteria in Section 6.2.1. These include, but are not limited to, trip landing and
frequency limits and size limits for all commercial gear types and closed seasons for any groundfish species
in cases where protection of an overfished or depleted stock is required and bag limits, size limits, time/area
closures, boat limits, hook limits, and dressing requirements for all recreational fisheries. Previous analysis
must have been specific as to species and gear type before a management measure can be defined as routine
and acted on at a single Council meeting or by NMFS for actions in California impacting canary rockfish,
yelloweye rockfish, and black rockfish. If the recommendations are approved, the Secretary may waive for
good cause the requirement for prior notice and comment in the Federal Register and will publish a single
notice in the Federal Register making the action effective. This category of actions presumes the Secretary
will find that the need for swift implementation and the extensive notice and opportunity for comment on
these types of measures, along with the Council already having analyzed the scope of their impacts, will
serve as good cause to waive the need for additional prior notice and comment in the Federal Register.
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
53
December 2023
For actions outside of a Council meeting, the Regional Administrator, NMFS West Coast Region, after
consultation with the Chairman of the Pacific Fishery Management Council and the Fishery Director of the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife, or their designees, is authorized to modify the following
designated routine management measures for canary rockfish, yelloweye rockfish, and black rockfish in
California: For commercial fisheries 1) trip landing and frequency limits; and 2) depth based management
measures. For recreational fisheries 1) bag limits; 2) time/area closures; 3) depth based management. Any
modifications may be made only after NMFS has determined that a federal harvest limit for canary rockfish,
yelloweye rockfish, or black rockfish, in California, is attained or projected to be attained prior to the first
day of the next Council meeting. Any modifications may only be used to restrict catch of canary rockfish,
yelloweye rockfish, or black rockfish in California. However, given the mixed nature of the fishery, there
may be impacts to other species, similar to all inseason management measure adjustments. Such actions
must be consistent with Section 6.2.1. The Secretary may waive for good cause the requirement for prior
notice and comment in the Federal Register and will publish a single notice in the Federal Register making
the action effective.
C. Management Measures Rulemaking For Actions Developed Through the Three-CouncilMeeting Biennial Specifications Process and Two Federal Register Rules
During the biennial specifications process the Council may propose: (1) management measures to be
classified as routine the first time these measures are used; or (2) adjustments to measures previously
classified as routine, such as trip limits that vary by gear type, closed seasons or areas, and in the recreational
fishery, bag limits, size limits, time/area closures, boat limits, hook limits, and dressing requirements or (3)
new management measures, which are those management measures where the impacts have not been
previously analyzed and/or have not been previously implemented in regulations. Examples of new
measures that may be proposed during the biennial process include: changes to or imposition of gear
regulations; imposition of landings limits, frequency limits, or limits that differ by gear type; closed areas
or seasons used for the first time on any species or species group or gear type.
As described in Section 5.4, the three-Council-meeting biennial specifications process refers to the
following decision-making schedule:
1. The Council will develop proposed harvest specifications during the first meeting (usually
November). They will finish drafting harvest specifications and develop the management measures
during the second meeting (usually April).
2. The Council will develop and analyze the proposed management actions over the span of at least
two Council meetings (usually April and June) and provide the public advance notice and
opportunity to comment on both the proposals and the analysis prior to and at the second Council
meeting.
3. Finally, at the third meeting, the Council will make final recommendations to the Secretary on the
complete harvest specifications and management measures biennial management package (usually
June). For the Council to have adequate information to identify proposed management measures
for public comment at the first management measures meeting, the identification of issues and the
development of proposals normally must begin at a prior Council meeting.
If a management measure is designated as routine under this procedure, specific adjustments of that measure
can subsequently be announced in the Federal Register by notice, as described in the previous paragraphs.
The Secretary will publish a proposed rule in the Federal Register with an appropriate period for public
comment followed by publication of a final rule in the Federal Register.
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
54
December 2023
D. Full Rulemaking For Actions Normally Requiring at Least Two Council Meetings and Two
Federal Register Rules (Regulatory Amendment)
These include any proposed new management measures to be classified as routine, including those
considered highly controversial, or any measure that directly allocates the resource. These full rulemakings
will normally use a two-Council-meeting process, although additional meetings may be required to fully
develop the Council’s recommendations on a full rulemaking issue. Regulatory measures to implement an
FMP amendment will be developed through the full rulemaking process. The Secretary will publish a
proposed rule in the Federal Register with an appropriate period for public comment followed by
publication of a final rule in the Federal Register.
Council-recommended management measures addressing a resource conservation issue must be based upon
the identification of a point of concern through that decision-making framework, consistent with the specific
procedures and criteria listed in Section 6.2.2.
Council-recommended management measures addressing social or economic issues must be consistent with
the specific procedures and criteria described in Section 6.2.3.
Council-recommended changes to habitat protection measures must be consistent with the specific
procedures and criteria described in Section 6.2.4.
Routine Management Measures Overview
Routine management measures are those that the Council determines are likely to be adjusted on an annual
or more frequent basis. The Council will classify measures as routine through either the specifications and
management measures or rulemaking processes (C or D, above). In order for a measure to be classified as
routine, the Council will determine that the measure is appropriate to address the issue at hand and may
require further adjustment to achieve its purpose with accuracy.
As in the case for all proposed management measures, prior to initial implementation as routine measures,
the Council will analyze the need for the measures, their impacts, and the rationale for their use. Once a
management measure has been classified as routine through one of the two rulemaking procedures outlined
above, it may be modified thereafter through the single meeting notice procedure (B, above) only if (1) the
modification is proposed for the same purpose as the original measure, and (2) the impacts of the
modification are within the scope of the impacts analyzed when the measure was originally classified as
routine. The analysis of impacts need not be repeated when the measure is subsequently modified, if the
Council determines that they do not differ substantially from those contained in the original analysis. The
Council may also recommend removing a routine classification.
Experience gained from management of the Pacific Coast groundfish fishery indicates that certain measures
usually require modification on a frequent basis to ensure that they meet their stated purpose with accuracy.
For commercial fisheries, these measures are trip landing limits and trip frequency limits, including
cumulative limits, and notification requirements. They have been applied to the commercial fishery either
to lengthen the duration of the fishery, so as not to disturb traditional fishing and marketing patterns; to
reduce discards and waste, or; to discourage targeted fishing while allowing small incidental catches when
attainment of a HG or quota is imminent. In cases where protection of an overfished or depleted stock is
required, the Council may impose limits that differ by gear type, or establish closed areas or seasons. These
latter two measures were not historically imposed through the annual management cycle (now biennial)
because of their allocative implications. However, this additional flexibility has become necessary to allow
the harvest of healthy stocks as much as possible while protecting and rebuilding overfished and depleted
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
55
December 2023
stocks, and equitably distributing the burdens of rebuilding among sectors. The first time a differential trip
limit or closed season is to be imposed in a fishery, it must be imposed during the biennial management
cycle (with the required analysis and opportunity for public comment) and subsequently may be modified
inseason through the routine adjustment process.
For recreational fisheries, bag limits, size limits, time/area closures, boat limits, hook limits, and dressing
requirements may be applied to particular species, species groups, sizes of fish, and gear types. For the
recreational fishery, bag and size limits have been imposed to spread the available catch over a large number
of anglers, in order to avoid waste, and to provide consistency with state regulations.
Routine management measures are also often necessary to meet the varied and interwoven mandates of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act and FMP. These mandates include: preventing overfishing and rebuilding
overfished species in a manner consistent with rebuilding plans, reducing bycatch, allowing the harvest of
healthy stocks as much as possible while protecting and rebuilding overfished and depleted stocks, and
equitably distributing the burdens of rebuilding among the sectors.
Any measure designated as routine for a particular species, species group, or gear type may not be treated
as routine for a different species, species group, or gear type without first having been classified as routine.
Each year, the SAFE document or the appropriate NEPA document analyzing management measures will
list all measures that have been designated as routine.
The Council will conduct a continuing review of landings of those species for which HGs, quotas, OYs, or
specific routine management measures have been implemented and will make projections of the landings
at various times throughout the year. If in the course of this review it becomes apparent that the rate of
landings is substantially different than anticipated, and that the current routine management measures will
not achieve harvest management objectives, the Council may recommend inseason adjustments to those
measures. Such adjustments may be implemented through the single-meeting notice procedure (B, above).
Routine Management Measures:
This section outlines those actions determined to be routine. Additional actions may be designated as
routine through the biennial specifications process as outlined above and/or specified in regulations
therefore they may not appear in this section. The current list of routine management measures is published
in Federal regulations at 50 CFR 660.60(c).
All fisheries, all gear types:
Depth-based management measures, particularly the setting of closed areas known as GCAs may be
imposed on any sector of the groundfish fleet using specific boundary lines that approximate depth contours
with latitude/longitude coordinates. Depth-based management measures and the setting of closed areas
may be used to: protect and rebuild overfished stocks; extend the fishing season; for the commercial
fisheries, to minimize disruption of traditional fishing and marketing patterns; to reduce discards; for the
recreational fisheries, to spread the available catch over a large number of anglers; to discourage target
fishing while allowing small incidental catches to be landed; and to allow small fisheries to operate outside
the normal season.
Routine management measures have been developed to deal with management uncertainty in the groundfish
fishery. The process allows timely adjustment of measures inseason to respond to the most current scientific
and management information. These routine management measures are AMs under the Magnuson-Stevens
Act as amended.
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
56
December 2023
Deductions of yield from ACLs made prior to fishery allocations to accommodate research fisheries,
exempted fishing permits and groundfish bycatch in non-groundfish fishery sectors can be adjusted
routinely in accordance with sector needs as determined by the Council. Any changes must be made in
accordance with Section 6.2 paragraph B above.
Commercial limited entry and open access fisheries:
Trip landing and frequency limits, size limits, for all gear types may be imposed: to extend the fishing
season; to minimize disruption of traditional fishing and marketing patterns; to reduce discards; to
discourage target fishing while allowing small incidental catches to be landed; to protect overfished species;
to allow small fisheries to operate outside the normal season; and, for the open access fishery only, to
maintain landings at the historical proportions during the 1984-88 window period.
Trip landing and frequency limits have been designated as routine for the following species or species
groups: black rockfish, blue rockfish, bocaccio, canary rockfish, chilipepper rockfish, cowcod,
darkblotched rockfish, Pacific ocean perch, shortbelly rockfish, splitnose rockfish, widow rockfish,
yelloweye rockfish, yellowtail rockfish, minor nearshore rockfish or shallow and deeper minor nearshore
rockfish, shelf or minor shelf rockfish, and minor slope rockfish; DTS complex, which is composed of
Dover sole, sablefish, shortspine thornyheads, and longspine thornyheads, both as a complex and for the
species within the complex; arrowtooth flounder, English sole, petrale sole, Pacific sanddabs, rex sole, and
the Other Flatfish complex, which is composed of those species plus any other FMP flatfish species; Pacific
whiting; lingcod; cabezon; Pacific cod; spiny dogfish; and Other Fish as a complex consisting of all
groundfish species listed in the FMP and not otherwise listed as a distinct species or species group.
Size limits have been designated as routine for sablefish and lingcod.
Trip landing and frequency limits that differ by gear type and closed seasons may be imposed or adjusted
on a biennial or more frequent basis for the purpose of rebuilding and protecting overfished or depleted
stocks. To achieve the rebuilding of an overfished or depleted stock, a sector or sectors of the primary
Pacific whiting may be closed if a total catch limit of an overfished species has been designated for the
whiting fishery and that total catch limit is reached before the sector’s whiting allocation is reached. Total
catch limits in the primary Pacific whiting fishery may be established or adjusted as routine management
measures. In the shorebased IFQ fishery, changes to the surplus carry-over percentages may be routinely
adjusted (see Appendix E, Section E.2.1.3 and Table 1, A-2.2.2.b).
Recreational fisheries all gear types:
Routine management measures for all groundfish species, separately or in any combination, include: bag
limits, size limits, time/area closures, boat limits, hook limits, and dressing requirements. All routine
management measures on recreational fisheries are intended to keep landings within the harvest levels
announced by NMFS, to rebuild and protect overfished or depleted species, and to maintain consistency
with State regulations, and for the other purposes set forth in this section.
Bag limits may be imposed to spread the available catch over a large number of anglers; to protect and
rebuild overfished species; to avoid waste.
Size limits may be imposed to protect juvenile fish; to protect and rebuild overfished species; to enhance
the quality of the recreational fishing experience.
Season duration restrictions may be imposed to spread the available catch over a large number of anglers;
to protect and rebuild overfished species; to avoid waste; to enhance the quality of the recreational fishing
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
57
December 2023
experience.
Resource Conservation Issues—The Points of Concern Framework
The points of concern process is the Council’s second major tool (along with setting harvest levels) in
exercising its resource stewardship responsibilities. The Council developed the points of concern criteria
to assist it in determining when a focused review on a particular species or species group is warranted,
which might result in the need to recommend the implementation of specific management measures to
address the resource conservation issue. This process is intended to foster a continuous and vigilant review
of the Pacific Coast groundfish stocks and fishery to prevent unintended overfishing or other resource
damage. To facilitate this process, a Council-appointed management team (the GMT or other entity) will
monitor the fishery throughout the year, taking into account any new information on the status of each
species or species group. By this means, they will identify resource conservation issues requiring a
management response. The Council is authorized by this FMP to act based solely on evidence that one or
more of these points of concern criteria has been met. This allows the Council to respond quickly and
directly to a resource conservation issue. In conducting this review, the GMT or other entity will use the
most current catch, effort, and other relevant data from the fishery.
In the course of the continuing review, a point of concern occurs when any one or more of the following
situations occurs or is expected to occur:
1. Catch for the calendar year is projected to exceed the best current estimate of ABC for those species
for which an ACL, OY, HG, or quota is not specified.
2. Catch for the calendar year is projected to exceed the current ACL, OY, HG or quota.
3. Any change in the biological characteristics of the species or species complex is discovered, such
as changes in age composition, size composition, and age at maturity.
4. Exploitable biomass or spawning biomass is below a level expected to produce MSY for the
species/species complex under consideration.
5. Recruitment is substantially below replacement level.
6. Estimated bycatch of a species or species group increases substantially above previous estimates,
or there is information that abundance of a bycatch species has declined substantially.
7. Impacts of fishing gear on EFH are discovered and modification to gear or fishing regulations could
reduce those impacts.
Once a point of concern is identified, the GMT will evaluate current data to determine if a resource
conservation issue exists and will provide its findings in writing at the next scheduled Council meeting. If
the GMT determines a resource conservation issue exists, it will provide its recommendation, rationale, and
analysis for the appropriate management measures that will address the issue.
In developing its recommendation for management action, the Council will choose an action from one or
more of the categories listed below, although they may also identify other necessary measures. These
categories cover the types of management measures most commonly used to address resource conservation
issues:
•
•
HGs
Quotas
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
58
December 2023
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Cessation of directed fishing on the identified species or species group with appropriate allowances
for incidental harvest of that species or species group
Size limits
Landing limits
Trip frequency limits
Area or subarea closures
Time closures
Seasons
Gear limitations, which include, but are not limited to, definitions of legal gear, mesh size
specifications, codend specifications, marking requirements, and other gear specifications as
necessary
Observer or other monitoring coverage
Reporting requirements
Permits
Council recommendations to directly allocate the resource will be developed according to the criteria and
process described in Section 6.2.3, the socioeconomic framework.
After receiving the GMT’s report and comments from its advisory bodies, the Council will take public
testimony and, if appropriate, will recommend management measures to the NMFS Regional
Administrator, accompanied by supporting rationale and analysis of impacts. The Council’s analysis will
include a description of (a) how the action will address the resource conservation issue, consistent with the
objectives of the FMP; (b) likely impacts on other management measures, other fisheries, and bycatch; (c)
economic impacts, particularly the cost to the commercial and recreational segments of the fishing industry;
and (d) impacts on fishing communities.
The NMFS Regional Administrator will review the Council’s recommendation and supporting information
and will follow the appropriate implementation process described in Section 6.2 D depending on the amount
of public notice and comment provided by the Council and the intended permanence of the management
action. If the Council anticipates that the recommended measures will be adjusted frequently, it may
classify them as routine through the appropriate process described in Section 6.2.1.
If the NMFS Regional Administrator does not concur with the Council’s recommendation, the Council will
be notified in writing of the reasons for the rejection.
Nothing in this section is meant to detract from the authority of the Secretary to take emergency action
under Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
Non-biological Issues—The Socioeconomic Framework
From time to time, non-biological issues may arise that require the Council to recommend management
actions to address certain social or economic issues in the fishery. Resource allocation, seasons, or landing
limits based on market quality and timing, safety measures, and prevention of gear conflicts make up only
a few examples of possible management issues with a social or economic basis. In general, there may be
any number of situations where the Council determines that management measures are necessary to achieve
the stated social and/or economic objectives of the FMP.
Either on its own initiative or by request, the Council may evaluate current information and issues to
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
59
December 2023
determine if social or economic factors warrant imposition of management measures to achieve the
Council’s established management objectives. Actions that are permitted under this framework include all
of the categories of actions authorized under the points of concern framework with the addition of direct
resource allocation.
If the Council concludes that a management action is necessary to address a social or economic issue, it
will prepare a report containing the rationale in support of its conclusion. The report will include the
proposed management measure, a description of other viable alternatives considered, and an analysis that
addresses the following criteria: (a) how the action is expected to promote achievement of the goals and
objectives of the FMP; (b) likely impacts on other management measures, other fisheries, and bycatch; (c)
biological impacts; (d) economic impacts, particularly the cost to the fishing industry; (e) impacts on fishing
communities; and (f) how the action is expected to accomplish at least one of the following, or any other
measurable benefit to the fishery:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
Enable a quota, HG, or allocation to be achieved.
Avoid exceeding a quota, HG, or allocation.
Extend domestic fishing and marketing opportunities as long as practicable during the fishing year,
for those sectors for which the Council has established this policy.
Maintain stability in the fishery by continuing management measures for species that previously
were managed under the points of concern mechanism.
Maintain or improve product volume and flow to the consumer.
Increase economic yield.
Improve product quality.
Reduce anticipated bycatch and bycatch mortality.
Reduce gear conflicts, or conflicts between competing user groups.
Develop fisheries for underutilized species with minimal impacts on existing domestic fisheries.
Increase sustainable landings.
Reduce fishing capacity.
Maintain data collection and means for verification.
Maintain or improve the recreational fishery.
The Council, following review of the report, supporting data, public comment, and other relevant
information, may recommend management measures to the NMFS Regional Administrator accompanied
by relevant background data, information, and public comment. The recommendation will explain the
urgency in implementing the measure(s), if any, and reasons therefore.
The NMFS Regional Administrator will review the Council’s recommendation, supporting rationale, public
comments, and other relevant information, and, if it is approved, will undertake the appropriate method of
implementation. Rejection of the recommendation will be explained in writing.
The procedures specified in this chapter do not affect the authority of the Secretary to take emergency
regulatory action as provided for in Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act if an emergency exists
involving any groundfish resource, or to take such other regulatory action as may be necessary to discharge
the Secretary’s responsibilities under Section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
If conditions warrant, the Council may designate a management measure developed and recommended to
address social and economic issues as a routine management measure, provided that the criteria and
procedures in Section 6.2.1 are followed.
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
60
December 2023
Quotas, including allocations, implemented through this framework will be set for one-year periods and
may be modified inseason only to reflect technical corrections to an ABC. (In contrast, quotas may be
imposed at any time of year for resource conservation reasons under the points of concern mechanism.)
The Habitat Conservation Framework
The primary mechanism for providing habitat protections in Council-managed fisheries is via the EFH
provisions in the MSA and detailed at 50 CFR 600.805 – 600.930. The elements of EFH should be reviewed
at least every five years and revised if warranted, based on new or newly-available information. Councils
may establish closed areas to certain fishing gear or methods, to protect important habitats. In order to
protect EFH from the adverse effects of fishing, the Council has identified areas that are closed to bottom
trawling and/or other bottom contact gear (see Sections 6.8 and 7.4). These areas are described in Federal
regulations and may be modified through the full rulemaking process as described under Section 6.2 D. At
the outset of a periodic review, the Council will establish a set of objectives and a scope for the review and
revision process, consistent with Federal regulatory guidance on EFH. The Council would initiate a review
of information, including any new and newly-available information relevant to EFH, and identify
appropriate Council and NMFS staff to coordinate the review. If warranted, the Council could consider
modifying groundfish EFH elements currently in place, including the areas currently closed to fishing
activities that may adversely affect EFH, and could consider EFH elements that were not included
previously. In making its determination, the Council should consider, but is not limited to considering, the
best available scientific information about:
1. The importance of habitat types to any groundfish FMU species for their spawning, breeding,
feeding, or growth to maturity.
2. The presence, location, and condition of important habitat (as defined immediately above).
3. The presence and location of habitat that is vulnerable to the effects of fishing activities.
4. The presence and location of unique, rare, or threatened habitat.
5. New or increasing threats to EFH from non-fishing related activities.
6. The socioeconomic and management-related effects of closures, including changes in the location
and intensity of bottom contact fishing effort, the displacement or loss of revenue from fishing, and
social and economic effects to fishing communities attributable to the location and extent of closed
areas.
The Council should also consider the following habitat objectives:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Protect a diversity of habitat types across latitude ranges, biogeographic and depth zones, and
substrate types supporting all groundfish FMP species and life stages.
Develop conservation areas with a diversity of habitat types incorporating the ecological principles
of connectivity, size, distribution, and relative abundance.
Prioritize pristine or previously protected areas, or areas with low levels of fishing or non-fishing
impacts.
Protect habitats sensitive to fishing gear and habitats of high complexity across habitat types.
Distribute socioeconomic costs that would result from implementation of EFH amendments.
Conduct scientific research to further our understanding of the effects of fishing gear on EFH.
The Council should also consider the following priority habitats:
1. Hard substrate, including rocky ridges and rocky slopes
2. Habitat-forming invertebrates
3. Submarine canyons and gullies
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
61
December 2023
4. Seamounts
5. Areas where the probability of occurrence of an overfishes species was at least 80 percent of
the maximum probability of occurrence as predicted by models
Upon considering Advisory Body, NMFS, staff reports, and public comment, the Council will decide
whether to begin the rulemaking process described in Section 6.2 D for establishing, adjusting, or removing
discretionary management measures intended to have a permanent effect.
[Amendment 19, 28]
Indian Treaty Rights
Treaties with a number of Pacific Northwest Indian tribes reserve to those tribes the right of taking fish at
their usual and accustomed fishing grounds and stations (U & A) in common with other citizens of the
United States. NMFS has determined that the tribes that have groundfish U & A in the area managed by
this FMP are the Makah, Hoh, and Quileute Tribes, and the Quinault Indian Nation. Several tribal fisheries
exist for species covered by the FMP. The Federal government has accommodated these fisheries through
a regulatory process, found at 50 CFR 660.50. Until such time as tribal treaty rights are finally adjudicated
or the regulatory process is modified or repealed, the Council will continue to operate under that regulatory
process to provide recommendations to the Secretary on levels of tribal groundfish harvest.
[Amendment 18, 24]
6.3
Allocation
Allocation Framework
Allocation is the apportionment of an item for a specific purpose or to a particular person or group of
persons. Allocation of fishery resources may result from any type of management measure, but is most
commonly a numerical quota or HG for a specific gear or fishery sector. Most fishery management
measures allocate fishery resources to some degree, because they invariably affect access to the resource
by different fishery sectors by different amounts. These allocative impacts, if not the intentional purpose
of the management measure, are considered to be indirect or unintentional allocations. Direct allocation
occurs when numerical quotas, HGs, or other management measures are established with the specific intent
of affecting a particular group’s access to the fishery resource.
Fishery resources may be allocated to accomplish a single biological, social or economic objective, or a
combination of such objectives. The entire resource, or a portion, may be allocated to a particular group,
although the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that allocation among user groups be fair and equitable,
reasonably calculated to promote conservation, and determined in such a way that no group, person, or
entity receives an undue excessive share of the resource. The socioeconomic framework described in
Section 6.2.3 provides criteria for direct allocation. Allocative impacts of all proposed management
measures should be analyzed and discussed in the Council’s decision-making process.
In addition to the requirements described in Section 6.2.3, the Council will consider the following factors
when intending to recommend direct allocation of the resource.
1. Present participation in and dependence on the fishery, including alternative fisheries.
2. Historical fishing practices in and historical dependence on the fishery.
3. The economics of the fishery.
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
62
December 2023
4. Any consensus harvest sharing agreement or negotiated settlement between the affected
participants in the fishery.
5. Potential biological yield of any species or species complex affected by the allocation.
6. Consistency with the Magnuson-Stevens Act national standards.
7. Consistency with the goals and objectives of the FMP.
The modification of a direct allocation cannot be designated as routine unless the specific criteria for the
modification have been established in the regulations.
Formal Allocations
Sector Allocations of Sablefish North of 36⁰ N latitude
Fixed allocations of sablefish are based on the ACL specified for the area north of 36° N latitude (to the
U.S.-Canada border). Sablefish allocations north of 36° N latitude are determined by first deducting the
tribal share from the ACL (or OY) specified for north of 36° N latitude, then deducting the estimated total
mortality of sablefish in research and non-groundfish fisheries (these deductions are decided in the biennial
process for specifying harvest specifications and management measures based on the best available
information at the time of the decision), then dividing the remaining yield (non-tribal share) between open
access and LE fisheries, with the LE share divided between the trawl and fixed gear (longline and fishpot)
sectors. The proportions of each of these divisions are indicated in Figure 6-1. The LE fixed gear share is
then generally divided 85 percent to the primary fishery for LE fixed gear vessels with sablefish
endorsements and 15 percent for the daily-trip-limit fishery, for such vessels with and without sablefish
endorsements.
Figure 6-1. Fixed intersector allocations of sablefish north of 36° N latitude.
Sector allocations of Pacific Whiting
Projected total mortalities of Pacific whiting in recreational, research, and non-whiting fisheries are first set
aside (these deductions are decided in the annual process for specifying Pacific whiting harvest
specifications and management measures based on the best available information at the time of the
decision), then a yield amount is set-aside to accommodate tribal whiting fisheries. In some years the
whiting set-aside may be increased to accommodate other programs, such as EFPs. The nontribal
commercial share of whiting is allocated to LE whiting trawl sectors as follows: 42 percent for the shoreside
whiting sector, 24 percent for the at-sea mothership whiting sector, and 34 percent for the at-sea catcherprocessor whiting sector. No more than five percent of the shoreside whiting sector’s allocation may be
taken and retained south of 42° N latitude prior to the start of the shore-based whiting season north of 42°
N latitude (in waters off Oregon and Washington).
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
63
December 2023
Limited Entry Trawl Allocations for Amendment 21 and 29 Stocks and Stock
Complexes
Formal allocations of stocks and stock complexes covered under Amendments 21 and 29 support
Amendment 20 trawl rationalization measures. Annual OYs/ACLs are established for these stocks and
stock complexes the same as for other groundfish stocks and stock complexes. The OYs/ACLs are then
reduced by deducting the estimated total mortality of these stocks and stock complexes in research, tribal,
and non-groundfish fisheries, and the estimated exempted fishing permits set-asides. The remainder of the
OYs/ACLs are then allocated according to the percentages in Table 6-1. The trawl percentage is for the
non-treaty LE trawl fishery. The non-treaty, non-trawl percentage is for the LE fixed gear fishery, the open
access fishery, and the recreational fishery. Amendment 6 limited entry and open access allocations are
superseded by these allocation percentages. Allocations to the directed non-trawl sectors (i.e., LE fixed
gear, directed open access, and recreational) for the species allocated in Table 6-1 are decided, if needed,
in the biennial harvest specifications and management measures process.
Trawl/Non-trawl Allocations
Table 6-1. Allocation percentages for limited entry trawl and non-trawl sectors specified for FMP groundfish
stocks and stock complexes under Amendments 21 and 29 (most percentages based on average 2003-2005 total
catches by sector).
Stock or Complex
Stocks
Arrowtooth flounder
Chilipepper rockfish S of 40°10' N lat.
Darkblotched rockfish
Dover sole
English sole
Lingcod N of 40°10' N lat.
Longspine thornyhead N of 34°27' N lat.
Pacific cod
Pacific ocean perch
Sablefish S of 36° N lat.
Shortspine thornyhead N of 34°27' N lat.
Shortspine thornyhead S of 34°27' N lat.
Splitnose rockfish S of 40°10' N lat.
Starry flounder
Yellowtail rockfish N of 40°10' N lat.
Stock Complexes
Other Flatfish
Slope Rockfish N of 40°10’ N lat.
All Non-Treaty LE
Trawl Sectors
All Non-Treaty NonTrawl Sectors
95%
75%
95%
95%
95%
45%
95%
95%
95%
42%
95%
50 mt
95%
50%
88%
5%
25%
5%
5%
5%
55%
5%
5%
5%
58%
5%
Remaining Yield
5%
50%
12%
90%
81%
10%
19%
Shoreside Trawl Allocations for Initial Issuance
Under Amendment 20 trawl rationalization, the two existing LE trawl sectors delivering groundfish to
shoreside processing plants (i.e., shoreside whiting and shoreside non-whiting) are managed as one sector
under a system of IFQs. However, before quota shares can be allocated to eligible LE trawl permit holders,
an initial one-time allocation was made to the two shoreside sectors. All species subject to formal
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
64
December 2023
allocation, including sablefish north of 36⁰ N latitude and excluding the three trawl-dominant overfished
species (i.e., darkblotched rockfish, Pacific ocean perch, and widow rockfish) and yellowtail rockfish were
allocated to the shoreside whiting and shoreside non-whiting sectors based on 1995-2005 sector catch
percentages (Table 6-2). An initial allocation of 300 mt of yellowtail rockfish was made to the shoreside
whiting sector prior to allocation of Amendment 20 quota shares. The estimated fishing mortality of
Amendment 21 species in the at-sea whiting fishery (i.e., total catch by catcher-processors and vessels
delivering whiting to motherships) other than the three trawl-dominant overfished species is set-aside from
the LE trawl allocations specified in Table 6-1 prior to making the initial shoreside trawl sector allocations.
For the three trawl-dominant overfished species, at-sea set-asides and shoreside allocations were
determined through formulas originally in the FMP, later removed by Amendment 21-4. While set-aside
amounts for the at-sea whiting fishery (Mothership and Catcher/Processor sectors) were preliminarily
decided under Amendment 21, the actual set-aside amounts will be based on the best available information
on bycatch by these sectors in the biennial harvest specifications and management measures decision
process.
Table 6-2. Shoreside trawl sector catch percentages during 1995-2005 used to apportion the initial allocation of
Amendment 21 species to LE trawl sectors delivering groundfish to shoreside processing plants (i.e., shoreside
whiting and shoreside non-whiting).
1995-2005 Sector Catch
Percentage
Stock or Complex
Non-whiting
Whiting
Lingcod
Pacific Cod
Pacific Whiting
Sablefish N. of 36° N latitude
Sablefish S. of 36° N latitude
Chilipepper S. of 40°10' N latitude
Splitnose S. of 40°10' N latitude
Shortspine N. of 34°27' N latitude
Shortspine S. of 34°27' N latitude
Longspine N. of 34°27' N latitude
Minor Slope RF North of 40⁰10’ N latitude
Dover Sole
English Sole
Petrale Sole
Arrowtooth Flounder
Starry Flounder
99.7%
99.9%
0.1%
98.2%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
99.9%
100.0%
100.0%
98.6%
100.0%
99.9%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
0.3%
0.1%
99.9%
1.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
1.4%
0.0%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Other Flatfish
99.9%
0.1%
Set-Aside Amounts for At-sea Sectors
Under Amendment 20, the at-sea whiting sectors (i.e., catcher-processors and motherships) are managed in
a system of sector-specific harvest cooperatives. For the at-sea sectors, groundfish species other than
whiting are managed as set-asides, amounts for which are based on the best available information on
bycatch by these sectors and other relevant factors, including, but not limited to, status of the set-aside
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
65
December 2023
stocks, expected utilization in other sectors of the fishery, and expected management conditions in any
sector in upcoming fishing years, as determined in the biennial harvest specifications and management
measures decision process. The set-aside amounts come from the trawl allocation, with the remainder (after
deducting the set-asides) going to the shoreside sector allocation.
Allocation of Pacific Halibut
Pacific halibut is a prohibited species in the west coast LE trawl fishery. Under Amendment 20, Pacific
halibut bycatch in the shoreside trawl fishery north of 40⁰10’ N latitude is managed using a system of
individual bycatch quotas (IBQs). Under Amendment 21, an allocation of Pacific halibut was decided as
follows:
For 2012 through 2014, 15% of the Area 2A total constant exploitation yield (TCEY) for legal sized halibut 5
(net weight), not to exceed 130,000 lbs. will be subtracted from the TCEY to account for expected trawl
bycatch mortality of legal sized halibut (net weight). Beginning in 2015, the amount to be subtracted will
be capped at 100,000 lbs. The TCEY used for these calculations will be the best estimate of the TCEY
available from the IPHC at the time of the calculation (most likely the preliminary TCEY). 6 The bycatch
allocation percent can be adjusted downward or upward (above or below 15%) through the biennial
specifications and management measures process but the upper bound on the maximum allocations can
only be changed though an FMP amendment.
The shoreside trawl rationalization program keeps the trawl sector within expectations by requiring that
trawlers account for their total mortality of all halibut in round weight (legal and sublegal sized). Therefore,
to determine a trawl bycatch mortality limit the amount of halibut pounds available to the trawl fleet will
be determined by expanding the expected legal sized halibut mortality (net weight) into a round weight
legal+sublegal sized amount. To achieve this, the following conversions will be applied.
i. Net weight to round weight conversion: multiply by the IPHC net weight to round weight
conversion factor in use at the time of the calculation (for 2011 the ratio was 1/0.75=1.33).
ii. Legal to legal+sublegal sized conversion factor: multiply by the IPHC legal+sublegal to legal
ratio in use at the time of the calculation (for 2011 the ratio was 1/0.62=1.61).
After these conversions, 10 mt will be subtracted to cover bycatch mortality in the at-sea whiting fishery
and trawl fishery south of 40º10’ N latitude, and the remainder will be issued as IBQ, to be used to cover
Pacific halibut mortality by vessels operating in the shoreside trawl IFQ program. The amount of Pacific
halibut set aside to accommodate incidental catch in the trawl fishery south of 40º10’ N latitude and in the
at-sea whiting fishery can be adjusted in the biennial specifications and management measures process in
future years as better information becomes available.
Under Amendment 21, it was decided that any formal allocations be specified in the FMP. Future
consideration for a re-allocation of FMP species subject to a formal allocation will require an FMP
amendment. The provision to temporarily suspend the formal allocation if a species is declared overfished
(see Section 4.6.1(5) of the FMP) is maintained under Amendment 21.
All intersector allocations will be formally reviewed along with the formal review of the trawl
rationalization program five years after implementation of Amendments 20 and 21.
“Legal sized” halibut refers to halibut with a total length of 32 inches and above, or O32, and “sublegal sized” halibut refers to
halibut under 32 inches in total length, or U32.
6 The TCEY provided by the IPHC is based upon legal sized (O32) halibut. If the IPHC changes the basis for its estimate of TCEY,
NMFS will update the calculation of the trawl bycatch mortality limit accordingly through a regulatory amendment.
5
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
66
December 2023
[Amendment 18, 21]
6.4
Standardized Total Catch Reporting and Compliance Monitoring Program
Fishery managers participating in the Council process need accurate estimates of total fishing mortality.
Total fishing mortality data are needed to set accurate harvest specifications and management measures and
to adjust management measures inseason so that ACLs/OYs may be achieved, but not exceeded. Various
state, Federal, and tribal catch monitoring systems are used in west coast groundfish management. These
are coordinated through the PSMFC. PacFIN (Pacific Fisheries Information Network) is the commercial
catch monitoring database, and RecFIN (Recreational Fishery Information Network) is the database for
recreational fishery catch monitoring.
Total catch has two major components: fish that are retained, landed, and sold or kept for personal use, and
fish that are discarded, either at sea or on shore. 7 This discarded component is what the Magnuson-Stevens
Act defines as bycatch. 8 Total catch and total fishing mortality may differ because some bycatch may
survive capture and subsequent discard, or release. Bycatch mortality varies depending on the physiology
of a particular species, the type of fishing gear used, and how fish are handled from the time of capture until
they are released back into the water.
Commercial and recreational groundfish fisheries have been managed through a variety of measures
intended to limit catch to the level established by an ACL/OY. These measures include cumulative landing
limits for commercial fisheries and bag limits for recreational fisheries (see Section 6.7). When these
measures are less restrictive, few constraints are imposed on fisheries and fish are primarily discarded for
economic reasons. (In recreational fisheries, an economic discard would be a personal assessment of the
desirability of a particular fish or fish species.) When one stock has a comparatively low landing or bag
limit in a multispecies fishery, because it is depleted for example, a fisher may discard fish of that stock
once the limit is reached in order to continue fishing for other species. Under these conditions, bycatch can
be a large portion of total catch and total fishing mortality. With a standardized reporting methodology,
managers are better able to track bycatch both inseason and cumulatively, information that is essential to
developing management programs to reduce bycatch and bycatch mortality. Therefore, maintaining a
standardized reporting methodology to assess the amount and type of bycatch occurring in the fishery, in
addition to being required by the Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. 1853(a) (11)), is an important
management task. This FMP meets that requirement through a standardized reporting methodology not
just for the amount and type of bycatch occurring in the fishery, but for total catch (landed catch plus
bycatch mortality) in the fishery.
In order to better monitor and manage bycatch, the Council supports accounting for total catch by specified
fishery sectors. Beginning with the 2003 fishing year, as part of its evaluation of proposed management
measures, the Council has been projecting total catches by fishery sector. Actual landings and estimated
bycatch have also been categorized by fishery sector. Methods to accurately estimate sector- and speciesspecific total catch are needed to support the Council’s bycatch mitigation program (Section 6.5). The
Council relies on a combination of state, tribal, and Federal reporting and monitoring programs to determine
7
8
The Magnuson-Stevens Act further defines the term fish to mean “finfish, mollusks, crustaceans, and all other forms of marine
animal and plant life other than marine mammals and birds” 16 U.S.C. 1802(12).
Using the term bycatch has led to considerable confusion, because many people use the term synonymously with the concept
of incidental catch, or that part of the catch which is not the target of the fishery. In single-species fisheries, incidental catch
and discards may be largely coincident. But in multi-species fisheries there may be multiple targets, and species that might
be considered incidental are commonly retained, depending on the market and regulatory environment. In this FMP, the
Magnuson-Stevens Act definition of bycatch is used, as distinct from incidentally-caught species.
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
67
December 2023
total catch. NMFS is responsible for evaluating the adequacy of Federal standardized reporting
methodologies for assessing the amount and type of bycatch occurring in a fishery. In 2004, NMFS
published Evaluating Bycatch: A National Approach to Standardized Bycatch Monitoring Programs, which
describes Federal standardized bycatch reporting methodologies and evaluates the adequacies of these
methodologies, including those used for the west coast groundfish fisheries. Federal reporting requirements
in this fishery are described below.
Total Catch Reporting Methodology
Monitoring Total Catch At Sea – Observer and Electronic Monitoring Programs
The Magnuson-Stevens Act defines the term “observer” as “any person required or authorized to be carried
on a vessel for conservation and management purposes by regulations or permits under this Act.” The
Magnuson-Stevens Act also sets out guidelines for vessels carrying observers, observer training
requirements, and observer status as Federal employees.
All fishing vessels operating in this management unit, which includes catcher-processors, at-sea processors,
and those vessels that directly or incidentally harvest groundfish in waters off Washington, Oregon, and
California, may be required to accommodate an observer and/or video electronic-monitoring system for the
purpose of collecting scientific data or verifying catch landings and discard used for scientific data
collection. These vessels may also be required to accommodate an observer and/or electronic monitoring
system for the purpose of estimating total catch inseason to implement a sector- or vessel-specific total
catch limit program. Implementation of any observer program or electronic monitoring system will be in
accordance with appropriate Federal procedures, including economic analysis and public comment. Any
Federal program that requires the collection of information from fishery participants is also subject to the
requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA).
The Regional Administrator will implement an observer program through a Council-approved Federal
regulatory framework. Details of how observer coverage will be distributed across the west coast
groundfish fleet will be described in an observer coverage plan that is appropriate to the purpose of the
particular observer program goals. An observer coverage plan designed for a scientific data collection
program will likely be different from an observer coverage plan designed for a sector- or vessel-specific
total catch monitoring program. NMFS will publish an announcement of the authorization of the observer
program and description of the observer coverage plan in the Federal Register. Development and
implementation of an observer program is done through the full rulemaking process at Section 6.2, D.
Electronic monitoring is an automated alternative to some human data collection systems. Electronic
monitoring equipment may provide accurate, timely, and verifiable information on some elements of fishing
operations at a lower cost than that provided by an at-sea observer. Electronic monitoring is an integrated
assortment of electronic components combined with a software operating system. An electronic monitoring
system typically includes one or more video cameras, a central processing unit with removable hard drive,
and software that can integrate data from other components of a vessel’s electronic equipment. The system
autonomously logs video and vessel sensor data during the fishing trip without human intervention. When
the vessel has completed its fishing operations and returned to port, the video and other data are transferred
to a separate computer system for analysis. Video records are typically reviewed by human samplers on
shore, but electronic techniques are being developed to automate some of this activity. Electronic
monitoring has been tested in various Canadian fisheries and has successfully addressed specific fishery
monitoring objectives. NOAA Fisheries began testing electronic monitoring equipment in the 2004 shorebased whiting fishery, in order to determine whether a full-retention program could be adequately
monitored by an electronic monitoring system. This FMP authorizes the use of electronic monitoring
programs for appropriate sectors of the fishery. Development and implementation of an electronic
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
68
December 2023
monitoring program would be done through the full rulemaking process at 6.2 D.
There may be a priority need for observers on at-sea processing vessels to collect data normally collected
at shore-based processing plants. Certain information for management of the fishery may be obtained from
logbooks and other reporting requirements, but the collection of some types of data would be too onerous
for some fishermen to collect. Processing vessels must be willing to accommodate onboard observers and
may be required to provide observers prior to issuance of any necessary Federal permits.
Commercial Fisheries
The total catch accounting methodology for commercial groundfish fisheries has two main components:
monitoring landed catch through reports by fish processors (fish receiving tickets) and at-sea observer
programs to estimate bycatch. Observer coverage rates vary by fishery, with at-sea processors (whiting
catcher-processors and motherships) being required to carry one or two observers depending on vessel
length. Fishery observers for the remainder of the commercial groundfish fleet are required to carry
observers in accordance with the NMFS observer coverage plan. Because non-whiting fishery observers
are usually placed aboard only a fraction of the vessels in a given sector, their observations must be
expanded using statistical methods in order to estimate total catch across a sector. For some fishery sectors,
there may not be any direct observation or reporting of bycatch; in such cases, standard bycatch rates
developed using the best scientific information may be used to estimate bycatch. Combining bycatch
information with information on landed catch gives an estimate of total catch. The Council uses total catch
information in inseason management to determine the relationship between catch at a given point in time
and an ACL/ annual OY. Management measures within a given year may be adjusted based on total catch
information in order to prevent total catch from exceeding ACL/OY levels. Fishery managers also use
historic total catch data in stock assessments and to develop future harvest specifications and management
measures.
The owner or operator of any vessel that retains fish harvested in the area managed by this FMP whose port
of landing is outside the management area may be required to report those catches in a timely manner
through a Federal reporting program. They also may be required to submit a completed fish landing ticket
from Washington, Oregon, or California, or an equivalent document containing all of the information
required by the state on that fish ticket.
Monitoring Total and Landed Catch
Federal regulations require fishers to sort all species with trip limits, HGs, or ACLs/OYs, including all
overfished species. The states also require LE groundfish trawl fishermen to maintain logbooks to record
the start and haul locations, time, and duration of trawl tows, as well as the total catch by species market
category (i.e., those species and complexes with sorting requirements). Landings are recorded on state fish
receiving tickets. Fish tickets are designed by the individual states, but there is an effort to coordinate
record-keeping requirements with state and Federal managers through PSMFC. Catch weight by sorted
species category, area of catch, vessel identification number, and other data elements are required on fish
tickets. Landings are also sampled in port by state personnel, who collect species composition data, otoliths
for ageing, lengths, and other biological data. A suspension of at-sea sorting requirements coupled with
full retention of catch is allowed in the shoreside whiting fishery under an EFP. Amendment 10 to the FMP
authorized this suspension of at-sea reporting requirements through a rulemaking, rather than just through
an EFP.
Landings, logbook data, and state port sampling data are reported inseason to the PacFIN database, which
is managed by PSMFC. The GMT and PSMFC manage the Quota Species Monitoring (QSM) data set
reported in PacFIN. All landings of groundfish stocks of concern (overfished stocks and stocks below
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
69
December 2023
BMSY) and target stocks and stock complexes in west coast fisheries are tracked in QSM reports of landed
catch. QSM reports also include bycatch (discard) estimates, allowing them to be used to track total catch.
The GMT recommends prescribed landing limits and other inseason management measures to allow
Council-managed fisheries to attain, but not exceed, total catch ACLs/OYs of QSM species. Stock and
complex landing limits are modified inseason to control total fishing-related mortality; QSM reports and
landed catch forecasts are used to control the landed catch component.
Groundfish Observer Programs
Vessels participating in the at-sea Pacific whiting fishery have been carrying observers voluntarily since
1991. NMFS made observer coverage mandatory for at-sea processors in July 2004 (65 FR 31751). These
provisions have not only given fishery managers the tools necessary to allow the at-sea Pacific whiting
program to operate efficiently while meeting management goals, but have also provided scientists, through
the observer coverage, an extensive amount of information on bycatch species in this fishery.
NMFS first implemented the West Coast Groundfish Observer Program in August 2001, placing observers
aboard commercial groundfish vessels to monitor discards. By regulation (50 CFR § 660.16), all vessels
that participate in commercial groundfish fisheries must carry an observer when notified to do so by NMFS
or its designated agent. These observers monitor and record catch data, including species composition of
retained and discarded catch. Observers also collect biological data, such as fish length, sex, and weight.
The program currently deploys observers coastwide on the permitted trawl and fixed gear groundfish fleet,
as well as on some vessels that are part of the open-access groundfish fleet. Observers monitor between 10
percent and 20 percent of the catch, as a proportion of total landings. Given the skewed distribution of
bycatch in west coast groundfish fisheries, many observations in each sampling strata (gear type and area)
are needed to estimate representative bycatch rates.
The FMP does not currently authorize foreign fisheries for groundfish. According to the Magnuson-Stevens
Act, observers would be required on any foreign vessels operating in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).
Recreational Fisheries
Recreational catch is monitored by the states as it is landed in port. These data are compiled by the PSMFC
in the Recreational Fishery Information Network (RecFIN)database. The types of data compiled in RecFIN
include sampled biological data, estimates of landed catch plus discards, and economic data.
The Marine Recreational Fishery Statistics Survey (MRFSS) was an integral part of the RecFIN program
until recently, and was the principle program used to estimate effort and catches in the recreational fisheries.
The MRFSS used field-intercept surveys to estimate catch, and a random phone survey of coastal
populations to estimate effort. The results of these two surveys were combined in the RecFIN database to
estimate total fishing effort, fishing mortality, and other estimates useful for management. MRFSS was not
designed to estimate catch and effort at the level of precision needed for inseason management or
assessment. Thus, while MRFSS continues to be used as a nationwide statistical tool for assessing national
recreational fisheries data, it is no longer relied upon to support inseason west coast groundfish
management. In recent years, the three states, NMFS, and PSMFC have been revamping the way that west
coast recreational fisheries data are collected, and estimates are generated so that the data system better
supports inseason management. Each state has either improved upon existing sampling projects, such as
Washington’s Ocean Sampling Program, and Oregon’s Ocean Recreational Boat Survey and Shore and
Estuary Boat Survey, or developed new sampling programs, such California’s Recreational Fisheries
Survey. Data collected by these state-sponsored programs are submitted to RecFIN, and form the basis for
estimating catch and effort. All three states have accelerated their reporting rates to RecFIN. Beginning in
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
70
December 2023
2005, the states plan to provide recreational fisheries data within one month of the fishing activity; for
example, fisheries data through the end of January would be available at the end of February.
The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife’s Ocean Sampling Program (OSP) generates catch and
effort estimates for the recreational boat-based groundfish fishery, which are provided to PSMFC and
incorporated directly into RecFIN. The OSP provides catch in total numbers of fish, and also collects
biological information on average fish size, which is provided to RecFIN to enable conversion of numbers
of fish to total weight of catch. Boat egress from the Washington coast is essentially limited to four major
ports (Neah Bay, La Push, Westport, and Ilwaco), which enables a sampling approach to strategically
address fishing effort from these ports. Effort estimates are generated from exit-entrance counts of boats
leaving coastal ports while catch per unit of effort is generated from angler intercepts at the conclusion of
their fishing trip. The goal of the program is to provide information to RecFIN on a monthly basis with a
one-month delay to allow for inseason estimates.
The ODFW’s Ocean Recreational Boat Survey (ORBS) is responsible for collecting both effort and catch
data for the ocean boat portion of the recreational fishery in Oregon. Samplers are stationed in 12 major
ports: Astoria, Garibaldi, Pacific City, Depoe Bay, Newport, Florence, Winchester Bay, Charleston,
Bandon, Port Orford, Gold Beach, and Brookings. Samplers collect effort information by either conducting
exit/entrance counts in the larger ports, or conducting trailer/slip counts in the smaller ports. Upon a
vessel’s return to port, samplers examine landed catch, collect released information, and collect biological
data used to calculate the average size of landed fish by species. The ORBS submits effort and catch
estimates to PSMFC’s RecFIN program. ODFW in cooperation with PSMFC has developed the Shore and
Estuary Boat Survey (SEBS) in order to develop effort and catch estimates for the shore and estuary boat
portions of Oregon’s recreational fishery. Effort is determined using a license frame-based phone survey.
In addition, SEBS is responsible for collecting discard information from the Oregon ocean charter fleet.
Samplers act as observers on charter vessels, enumerating releases by species, and taking lengths before
fish are released. This information is used to calculate an average size of fish discarded in the recreational
fishery.
The CDFG, in cooperation with PSMFC, implemented the California Recreational Fisheries Survey
(CRFS) in 2004. CRFS combines the prior MRFSS party and charter vessels (PC) sampling program
(California’s sampling methodology for private recreational vessels) with several new methodologies
specifically designed for CRFS into a single, coordinated, statewide program. This program is designed to
produce more timely and accurate catch and effort estimates than were available through the MRFSS
program while continuing to provide the comprehensive coverage used in the MRFSS program for all
recreational fisheries in both boat (private boats, rental boats, and party/charter boats) and shore (pier, jetty,
beach and bank) modes of fishing. CRFS employs the following methodologies for sampling these different
modes of recreational fishing:
•
•
•
•
Private and rental boats (PR) are divided into primary and secondary sampling sites. Primary sites
are sampled using a public launch ramp access point survey for effort and catch at high use sites
during daylight hours. These sites are defined as those where 90 percent or more of the catch of
important species are landed. Secondary sites are sampled using a roving access point survey for
effort and catch. These sites are defined as those sites in a particular month where less than 10
percent of the total catch of important species is landed.
Man-made (MM) sites, composed of piers, jetties and breakwaters, are sampled using a roving
access point survey for catch and effort.
Beach and Bank sites are sampled using two surveys: a roving access point survey at publicly
accessible beaches and banks during daylight hours for catch rates and an angler license database
telephone survey for all effort.
PC vessels are sampled using two surveys: a weekly telephone survey of all PC vessels for effort
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
71
December 2023
•
and onboard sampling for catch.
Estimates of private access and night fishing effort and catch for PR, MM, and Beach and Bank
sites by trip type are derived using the angler license database telephone survey for effort and catch
rates from access point surveys for catch.
For all modes of fishing, samplers examine landed catch, collect release information and fishing location,
and collect biological data used to calculate the average size of landed fish by species. In addition, samplers
act as observers on charter vessels, enumerating releases by species, and taking lengths before fish are
released. The data, along with effort information for all modes, are entered by PSMFC into the RecFIN
database. Estimates of catch and effort are then generated by PSMFC staff and posted on the RecFIN
website. These estimates are greatly improved over those from MRFSS, not only because of the
improvements in sampling methodologies, but because of changes in sampling rates, reporting intervals,
geographical resolution, and expansion processes. CRFS, which employs a sampling rate in excess of three
times that from MRFSS, provides monthly estimates for six geographical regions in California that are
expanded from species catch rates based upon trip types and stated target species.
6.4.2
Vessel Compliance Monitoring and Reporting Requirements
In addition to authorizing Federal and state programs to collect total catch data, this FMP authorizes the
collection of fisheries data needed for compliance monitoring. The following types of data may be collected
through a regulatory program intended to ensure vessel compliance with fishery management measures:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Vessel name.
Radio call sign.
Documentation number or Federal permit number.
Company representative and telephone, fax, and/or telex number.
Vessel location including daily positions.
Check-in and check-out reports giving the time, date, and location of the beginning or ending of
any fishing activity.
7. Gear type.
8. Reporting area and period.
9. Duration of operation.
10. Estimated catch by species and area, species disposition (including discards, product type, and
weights).
11. Product recovery ratios and products sold (in weight and value by species and product type, and if
applicable, size or grade).
12. Any other information deemed necessary for management of the fishery.
Vessels also may be required to maintain and submit logbooks, accurately recording the following
information in addition to the information listed above, and for a specified time period: daily and cumulative
catch by species, effort, processing, and transfer information; crew size; time, position, duration, sea depth,
and catch by species of each haul or set; gear information; identification of catcher vessel, if applicable;
information on other parties receiving fish or fish products; and any other information deemed necessary.
Vessels may be required to inform a NMFS enforcement or U.S. Coast Guard office prior to landing or
offloading any seafood product. Such vessels may also be required to report prior to departing the
Washington, Oregon, and California management area with fish or fish products on board.
This FMP authorizes the use of vessel monitoring system (VMS) programs in order to improve compliance
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
72
December 2023
with area and/or season closures. VMS is a tool that is commonly used to monitor vessel activity in
relationship to geographical defined management areas where fishing activity is restricted. VMS
transceivers installed aboard vessels automatically determine the vessel’s location and transmit that position
to a processing center via a communication satellite. At the processing center, the information is validated
and analyzed before being disseminated for fisheries management, surveillance, and enforcement purposes.
VMS transceivers document the vessel’s position using Global Positioning System (GPS) satellites.
Depending on the defined need, position transmissions can be made on a predetermined schedule or upon
request from the processing center. VMS transceivers are designed to be tamper-resistant. The vessel
operator is unable to alter the signal or the time of transmission, and in most cases the vessel operator is
unaware of exactly when the unit is transmitting the vessel’s position. VMS programs used to improve
compliance in several fisheries with differing area and/or season closures may require the use of a
declaration system. A declaration system in association with VMS requires fishery participants declare
their intended fishing activity, allowing enforcement personnel to differentiate between vessels subject to
differing area and/or season closures.
New regulatory requirements for the collection of fishery-related data would need to be implemented
through the full rulemaking process detailed at Section 6.2 D. Any Federal program that requires the
collection of information from fishery participants is also subject to the requirements of the PRA.
[Amendment 18]
6.5
Bycatch Mitigation Program
Unquantified bycatch increases management risk because harvest limits may be inadvertently exceeded.
Regulatory-induced discards are inefficient because society does not benefit from fish with economic value
that are discarded to meet regulatory requirements. Bycatch can also include protected species and
organisms comprising ecologically important biogenic habitat. Thus, more generally, bycatch may have
broader environmental effects. The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires FMPs to include conservation and
management measures that, to the extent practicable, minimize bycatch and the mortality of unavoidable
bycatch (16 U.S.C. 1853(a)(11)). FMPs may also be subject to bycatch reduction requirements under the
ESA, the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), and other
Federal laws. Federal guidance on assessing the practicability of a potential management program is found
at 50 CFR § 600.350.
Working with NMFS, the states, and the tribes, the Council uses a three-part strategy to meet the MagnusonStevens Act’s bycatch-related mandates: (1) gather data through a standardized total catch reporting
methodology; (2) use Federal/state/tribal agency partners to assess these data through bycatch models that
estimate when, where, and with which gear types bycatch of varying species occurs; and (3) develop
management measures that minimize bycatch and bycatch mortality to the extent practicable. The FMP’s
total catch reporting methodology is described in Section 6.4.1. Bycatch models that assess observer and
other data to estimate bycatch amounts occurring in the different sectors of the fishery are routinely
reviewed through the Council’s SSC and GMT as part of the Council’s harvest specifications and
management measures rulemaking process. These models are intended to continuously improve the
Council’s use of the best available scientific information on species-to-species catch ratios. This section
describes the Council’s bycatch mitigation program and the management measures intended to minimize
bycatch and bycatch mortality.
Bycatch of Groundfish Species in Groundfish Fisheries
Groundfish bycatch in the groundfish fisheries includes both groundfish that are discarded for regulatory
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
73
December 2023
reasons, such as a vessel having achieved a trip limit for one species within an assemblage, and groundfish
that are discarded for economic reasons, such as a vessel having taken more fish than can be stored in its
hold, or having taken more of a particular species than is desired by a processor. The Council may initiate
new and practicable management measures to reduce groundfish bycatch in the groundfish fisheries under
either the harvest specifications and management measures rulemaking process (6.2 C) or the full
rulemaking process (Section 6.2 D) It is usually through the harvest specifications development process
that the Council is made aware of new data and analyses on groundfish bycatch and bycatch mortality rates.
The Council manages its groundfish fisheries to allow targeting on more abundant stocks while constraining
the total mortality of overfished and precautionary zone stocks. For overfished stocks, measures to
constrain total mortality are primarily intended to reduce bycatch of those stocks. The FMP defines stock
status of overfished, precautionary zone, and more abundant stocks at Section 4.5. Management measures
the Council has used to reduce total catch of overfished species are detailed for each species in Appendix
F. At Section 4.7, the FMP requires that landed catch ACLs/OYs be reduced from total catch ACLs/OYs
to account for bycatch mortality.
The Council has all of the management measures detailed in Sections 6.5– 6.10 at its disposal to manage
directed catch and reduce bycatch of groundfish species in the groundfish fisheries. Because of the
interaction among the various species and the regular incorporation of new information into the
management system, the details of the specific measures will change over the years, or within years, based
on the best available science. Management measures will be designed taking into account the co-occurrence
ratios of target stocks with overfished stocks. To protect overfished species and minimize bycatch through
reducing incidental catch of those species, the Council will particularly use, but is not limited to: catch
restrictions detailed in Section 6.7 to constrain the catch of more abundant stocks that commingle with
overfished species, in times and areas where higher abundance of overfished species are expected to occur;
the appropriate time/area closures detailed in Section 6.8 and designed to prevent vessels from operating
during times when or in areas where overfished species are most vulnerable to a particular gear type or
fishery; and gear restrictions described in Section 6.6, where that gear restriction has been shown to be
practicable in reducing overfished species incidental catch rates.
Bycatch and Incidental Take of Non-Groundfish Species in Groundfish Fisheries
Certain non-groundfish species may be taken incidentally in fisheries targeting groundfish. This FMP
authorizes management measures to minimize, to the extent practicable, the bycatch of non-groundfish
species or the incidental take of species not defined as fish under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Nongroundfish species subject to bycatch or incidental take minimization measures may be marine fish species
managed under another Council FMP, or marine animals or plants not managed with an FMP, yet subject
to the protections of the ESA, the MMPA, the MBTA, or other Federal laws. Marine mammals and birds
are specifically excluded from the Magnuson-Stevens Act definition of fish and are therefore not defined
as bycatch under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Notwithstanding, the Council may manage fisheries to
minimize the incidental take of these species.
Generally, the Council will initiate the process of establishing or adjusting management measures when a
resource problem with a non-groundfish species is identified and it has been determined that groundfish
fishing regulations would reduce the total impact on that species or stock. This would usually occur when
a state or Federal resource management agency (such as the U.S. Department of the Interior, NMFS, or
state fishery agency) or the Council’s Salmon Technical Team (STT) presents the Council with information
substantiating its concern for a particular species. The Council will review the information and refer it to
the SSC, GMT, STT, or other appropriate technical advisory group for evaluation. If the Council
determines, based on this review, that management measures may be necessary to prevent harm to a nongroundfish species facing conservation problems or to address requirements of the ESA, MMPA, other
relevant Federal natural resource law or policy, or international agreement, it may implement appropriate
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
74
December 2023
management measures in accordance with the procedures identified in Section 6.2. The intention of the
measures may be to share conservation burdens while minimizing disruption of the groundfish fishery, but
under no circumstances may the intention be simply to provide more fish to a different user group or to
achieve other allocation objectives.
Endangered Species Act Species
Marine species protected under the ESA that are not otherwise protected under either the MMPA or the
MBTA (see below) include various salmon and sea turtle species. Threatened and endangered Pacific
salmon runs are protected by a series of complex regulations affecting marine and terrestrial activities. In
the west coast groundfish fisheries, management measures to reduce incidental salmon take have focused
on the Pacific whiting fisheries, which have historically encountered more salmon than the non-whiting
groundfish fisheries. Salmon bycatch reduction measures include marine protected areas (MPA) where
Pacific whiting fishing is prohibited (See Section 0), and an at-sea observer program intended to track
whiting and incidental species take inseason (See Section 6.4.1.1). Sea turtles are rare in areas where
groundfish fisheries are prosecuted and no incidental take of sea turtles has been documented in any directed
groundfish fishery. Eulachon sometimes occurs as incidental catch in the groundfish bottom trawl and atsea whiting fisheries, and mortalities result from encounters with fishing gear. However, eulachon bycatch
and bycatch mortality is low (or non-existent) in most years, and is monitored through the at-sea observer
program.
Marine Mammal Protection Act Species
Incidental take of marine mammals is addressed under the MMPA and its implementing regulations.
Section 118 of the MMPA requires that NMFS place all commercial fisheries into one of three categories
based on the level of incidental serious injury and mortality of marine mammals that occur in each fishery.
To implement this requirement, NMFS publishes a list of U.S. commercial fisheries and categorizes their
effects on marine mammals. Directed west coast groundfish fisheries have consistently been categorized
as Category III fisheries, meaning that they are “commercial fisheries determined by the [NMFS] Assistant
Administrator to have a remote likelihood of, or no known incidental mortality and serious injury of marine
mammals.”
Migratory Bird Treaty Act Species
Incidental take of seabirds is addressed under the MBTA and its implementing regulations. The MBTA
implements various treaties and conventions between the U.S., Canada, Mexico, Japan, and the former
Soviet Union for the protection of migratory birds. Under the Act, taking, killing, or possessing migratory
birds is unlawful. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is the Federal agency responsible for
management and protection of migratory birds, including seabirds. NMFS is required to consult with the
USFWS if FMP actions may affect seabird species listed as endangered or threatened. In February 2001,
NMFS adopted the National Plan of Action for Reducing the Incidental Catch of Seabirds in Longline
Fisheries. This National Plan of Action contains guidelines that are applicable to the groundfish fisheries
and would require seabird incidental catch mitigation if a significant problem is found to exist.
Shared Ecosystem Component Species
Shared EC Species, identified in Table 3-3, could continue to be taken incidentally without violating Federal
regulations, unless regulated or restricted for other purposes, such as with bycatch minimization regulations.
The targeting of Shared EC Species is prohibited.
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
75
December 2023
Measures to Reduce Bycatch and Bycatch Mortality
Over the life of the FMP, the Council has used a suite of measures to reduce bycatch and bycatch mortality
in the groundfish fisheries. Early bycatch reduction measures concentrated on trawl net modifications
intended to reduce the bycatch of juvenile groundfish (Section 6.6.1.2). In 1993, the Council addressed
concerns over potential bycatch of endangered or threatened salmon in the whiting fishery by imposing the
Columbia River and Klamath River Conservation Zones (Section 0). Since 2000, the Council has
concentrated its bycatch reduction efforts on constraining total catch of overfished species through gear
restrictions (Section 6.6), catch restrictions (Section 6.7), time/area closures (Section 6.8), and effort
restrictions (Section Error! Reference source not found.). The Council and NMFS have also used permit
restrictions and effort reduction programs (Section Error! Reference source not found.) to reduce total
and incidental catch in the groundfish fisheries. Effort reduction measures implemented in recent years
include the sablefish endorsement and tier program for the LE fixed gear fleet and the vessel/permit buyback
program for the LE trawl fleet.
An important element of the Council’s bycatch mitigation program occurs every two years when the
Council develops its biennial specifications and management measures. During the development of the
biennial specifications and management measures, and throughout the year when measures are adjusted,
the Council will take into account the co-occurrence rates of target stocks and overfished stocks, and will
select measures that will minimize, to the extent practicable, bycatch. The Council may select appropriate
measures listed in the FMP and any others that may be developed in the future.
Any of the measures specified in Sections 6.5 through 6.10 may, where practicable, be used to reduce
groundfish or non-groundfish bycatch in the groundfish fisheries. The Council will develop measures to
reduce bycatch and bycatch mortality in accordance with the points of concern or the socioeconomic
framework provisions of the FMP (Section 6.2.3). The process for implementing and adjusting such
measures may be initiated at any time. New bycatch reduction management measures would need to be
developed through either the harvest specifications and management measures rulemaking process (Section
6.2, C) or the full rulemaking process (Section 6.2 D). In addition, some measures may be designated as
routine, which would allow adjustment at a single meeting based on the factors provided for in Section
6.2.1. Beyond the directed catch and bycatch management measures provided in Sections 6.6 through 6.10,
this Section 6.5.3 provides additional bycatch and bycatch mortality reduction programs available for
Council use.
Full Retention Programs
A full retention program is a regulatory regime that requires participants in a particular sector of the fishery
to retain either all of the fish that they catch or all of some species or species group that they catch.
Requiring full retention of all or a portion of a vessel’s catch allows more careful enumeration of total catch
under appropriate monitoring conditions. Full retention requirements also encourage affected fishery
participants to tailor their fishing activities so that they are less likely to encounter non-target species. The
Council may develop full retention programs for the groundfish fisheries, when such programs are
accompanied by an appropriate monitoring mechanism (Section 6.4) and where such programs are
sufficiently enforceable (Section 6.10) such that they are not expected to increase total mortality of
overfished species. The development of any full retention will be accompanied by an analysis of the
practicability of requiring retention of all of the designated species.
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
76
December 2023
Sector-specific and Vessel-specific Total Catch Limit Programs
Total catch limits are defined in Section 2.2.
The Council may specify total catch limits that are transferable or nontransferable among sectors and
tradable or non-tradable between vessels.
The Council may develop sector- and/or vessel-specific total catch limit programs for the groundfish
fisheries when such programs are accompanied by an appropriate monitoring mechanism (Section 6.4) and
where such programs are sufficiently enforceable (Section 6.10) such that they are not expected to increase
vessel detection-avoidance activities.
Sector-specific Total Catch Limit Program
A sector-specific total catch limit program is one in which a fishery sector would have access to a predetermined (probably through the harvest specifications and management measure process, Section 6.2, C)
amount of a groundfish FMU species, stock, or stock complex that would be allowed to be caught by vessels
in that sector. Once a total catch limit is attained, all vessels in the sector would have to cease fishing until
the end of the limit period, unless the total catch limit is increased by the transfer of an additional limit
amount. A sector-specific total catch limit program could be based on either: 1) monitoring of landed catch
and inseason modeling of total catch based on past landed catch and bycatch rates, or 2) monitoring of total
catch and real-time delivery of total catch data. If a sector-specific total catch limit program is based on
inseason monitoring of landed catch, a sector would close when inseason total catch modeling estimated
that the sector had achieved an FMU species, stock, or stock complex total catch limit. If a sector-specific
total catch limit program is based on inseason monitoring of total catch, a sector would close when inseason
total catch monitoring estimated that the sector had achieved an FMU species, stock, or stock complex total
catch limit. If inseason monitoring of total catch is possible, sector participants in a sector-specific total
catch limit program could either fish in an open competition with each other for total catch limits or could
cooperate with each other to keep their total catch below total catch limits.
In developing a sector-specific total catch program, the Council will initially consider the following ten
groundfish fishery sectors for assignment of total catch limits:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Non-whiting LE trawl vessels.
At-sea Pacific whiting catcher-processors.
LE trawl vessels delivering to at-sea Pacific whiting motherships.
LE trawl vessels delivering Pacific whiting to shore-based processing plants.
LE longline vessels.
LE pot vessels.
Directed open access vessels. These are vessels without a groundfish LE permit that on a per-trip
or per-landing basis demonstrate a fishing strategy targeting groundfish.
8. Incidental open access vessels. These are vessels that on a per-trip or per-landing basis are not
fishing under a groundfish LE permit and not targeting groundfish, but may catch some amount of
groundfish incidentally.
9. Tribal vessels targeting groundfish (see Section 6.2.5)
10. Recreational fishers (fishing from a vessel, from shore, or by another means), including charter (for
hire) vessels.
As necessary, the Council will establish criteria for deducting total catch by a particular vessel from a
particular sector’s total catch limit. For example, the same LE trawl vessel may make landings attributable
to the shore-based whiting sector or the non-whiting LE trawl sector, and assignment of a particular landing
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
77
December 2023
(and associated bycatch) to one or the other sector would be necessary. Similarly, an open access vessel
may target groundfish on a particular trip or time of year, falling into the directed open access sector, while
at other times targeting non-groundfish species but catching groundfish incidentally and falling into the
incidental open access sector. In general, the composition of a particular vessel’s landing and bycatch
associated with that landing will be used as the basis for assigning total catch to a sector (recognizing that
associated bycatch may be directly monitored or estimated). However, other criteria may be used if
appropriate.
Sector-specific total catch limits may be applied to one or more of the ten sectors enumerated above, and
separate limits may apply to one or more FMU species, stocks, or stock complexes. Two or more of these
sectors may be grouped and assigned an overall total catch limit for a given FMU species, stock, or stock
complex; similarly, any of the ten sectors may be further subdivided to create additional sectors for the
purpose of assigning a total catch limit for a given FMU species, stock, or stock complex. In considering
which sectors should be assigned a total catch limit for a given FMU species, stock, or stock complex, the
Council will consider current and/or projected total catch of the FMU species, stock, or stock complex by
vessels in that sector and the capacity of current monitoring programs to provide sufficiently accurate and
timely data to manage to a total catch limit, or the feasibility of establishing such a monitoring program for
the sector in question.
Vessel-specific Total Catch Limit Program
Vessel-specific total catch limits are similar to individual vessel quotas (see Section 6.9.3) as applied to
groundfish FMU species, stocks, or stock complexes, and require more intense monitoring than a sectorspecific total catch limit program. Vessel-specific total catch limits may be established for vessels
participating in a sector for which sector-specific total catch limits have already been established. Under a
vessel-specific total catch limit program, the participating vessels would be monitored inseason and each
vessel would be prohibited from fishing once it had achieved its total catch limit for a given FMU species,
stock, or stock complex. The Council will establish the criteria necessary to determine what portion of a
sector-specific total catch limit will be assigned to any vessel qualifying for a vessel-specific total catch
limit. The Council also may attach incentives, such as increased cumulative landing limits, or requirements,
such as carrying observers, when assigning total catch limit amounts to a vessel.
Inseason Adjustment of Sector Total Catch Limits
The Council may increase or decrease a sector limit during the limit period (for example, the fishing year
or biennial management period), but should only do so in exigent circumstances and based on the criteria
described below. If increasing sector limits inseason were to become a common management response,
this could erode their effectiveness as incentives to fishery participants to adopt bycatch-reducing
techniques and practices. Furthermore, adjusting a sector total catch limit could make the application of
vessel-specific total catch limits in that sector difficult. A change in the sector limit would require a
corresponding adjustment to each vessel limit, which would have to be accounted for in any monitoring
program.
Inseason (during the limit period) the Council should only increase a sector total catch limit for a
constraining species (a species whose ACL/OY or total catch limit prevents attainment of target species’
ACLs/OYs) if all of the following conditions are met:
1. Total catch monitoring indicates a constraining species’ sector total catch limit will be exceeded
well before the end of the limit period and the estimated target species’ total catch for that sector
(for the limit period) is well below the total catch previously predicted for the limit period.
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
78
December 2023
2. Monitored and projected total catch in other sectors (with or without sector total catch limits)
indicates that the ACLs/OYs for the constraining species in question (established on an annual or
other basis) will not be exceeded if the sector total catch limit is increased.
An increase in a sector total catch limit could be done through a transfer from another sector’s total catch
limit for the same species.
The Council may need to reduce a sector’s total catch limit because of an overage in one or more sectors.
An overage means total catch that exceeds or is projected to exceed a sector’s total catch limit for a
particular species or species group. The term overage also applies to sectors not operating under total catch
limits if total catch of the species in question (actual or projected) is above previous projections made for
those sectors prior to the start of any given period (bimonthly period, fishing year, etc.). The Council could
also reduce a sector’s total catch limit in the form of a sector-to-sector transfer, as described above. The
following principals should apply when considering an inseason downward adjustment in a total catch limit:
1. In order to avoid an overage, fishing may be prohibited after the date when a sector’s total catch
limit is projected to be reached, rather than waiting to close the fishery based on retrospective total
catch estimates (available, for example, in the QSM report). This strategy is relevant to sectors
without real-time reporting.
2. A downward adjustment should only be considered as a last resort when it is being considered for
use as a compensation for projected overages in other sectors. Measures to rapidly reduce projected
total catch in sectors where the overages are projected to occur, or in sectors without total catch
limits, (or for non-catch-limited species) should be considered first. These measures could be, for
example, changes to landing limits or changes in the size, configuration, and duration of time/area
closures.
3. If a sector has an overage that needs to be compensated for by a change in total catch limits for
other sectors, any downward adjustment in those sector’s total catch limits should reflect an
equitable reduction across all sectors, either through a proportional reduction in equivalent total
catch limits or through the application of other management measures intended to reduce total catch
of the species in question.
4. In the case of a reduction that is part of an intra-sector transfer, the criteria described above for an
increase shall apply. In no case shall a reduction consequent of a transfer disadvantage the vessels
in a sector in comparison to other sectors and with respect to fishing opportunity.
Catch Allocation to, or Gear Flexibility For, Gear Types with Lower Bycatch Rates
Catch allocations (Section 6.3), catch limits (Section 6.7), and fishing areas (Section 6.8) may be set so that
users of gear types with lower bycatch rates have greater fishing opportunities than users of gear with higher
bycatch rates. Increased fishing opportunities for users of gear types with lower bycatch rates could come
in the form of increased overall amounts of fish available for directed or incidental harvest, increased
landings limits, or increased allowable fishing areas. Increased fishing opportunities made available under
this provision may not be provided in such a way that the number of fishing vessels participating in the
groundfish fisheries is expected to increase.
Recreational Catch and Release Management
The Council may develop recreational catch-and-release programs for any groundfish stock through either
the harvest specifications and management measures rulemaking (Section 6.2 C.) or the full rulemaking
(Section 6.2 D) processes. The Council will assess the type and amount of groundfish caught and released
alive during fishing under such a program and the mortality of such fish. Management measures for such
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
79
December 2023
a program will, to the extent practicable, minimize mortality and ensure extended survival of such
groundfish.
[Amendment 18, 25]
6.6
Gear Definitions and Restrictions
The Council uses gear definitions and restrictions to protect juvenile fish (trawl mesh size), to disable lost
gear so that it no longer catches fish (biodegradable escape panels for pots), to slow the rates of catch in
particular sectors (recreational fisheries hook limits), to reduce bycatch of non-target species (trawl
configuration requirements), and to protect marine habitat (trawl roller gear size restrictions). Gear types
permitted for use in the West Coast groundfish fisheries in Federal waters are listed in Federal regulations
at 50 CFR § 660.11 and in a nationwide list of fisheries at 50 CFR § 600.725. No vessel may fish for
groundfish in Federal waters using any gear other than those authorized in Federal regulations. Gear
definitions and restrictions for both the commercial and recreational fisheries may be revised using either
the specifications-and-management-measures rulemaking process (Section 6.2 C.) or the full rulemaking
process (Section 6.2 D.). When developing revisions to gear definitions and restrictions, the Council shall
consider the expense of such revisions to fishery participants and the time required for participants to work
with gear manufacturers to meet new requirements.
Commercial Fisheries
This FMP authorizes the use of trawls, pots (traps), longlines, hook-and-line (mobile or fixed) and setnets
(gillnets and trammel nets) as legal gear for the commercial harvest of groundfish.
Prohibitions
The use of setnets is prohibited in all waters north of 38° N. latitude.
Bottom trawl gear with footropes larger than eight inches in diameter is prohibited shoreward of a line
approximating the 100 fm depth contour, as an EFH protection measure. This boundary line is defined in
Federal regulations by precise latitude-longitude coordinates (see 50 CFR § 660, Subpart C).
Bottom trawl gear with a footrope diameter larger than 19 inches is prohibited in the fishery management
area.
The use of dredge gear is prohibited in the fishery management area.
The use of beam trawl gear is prohibited in the fishery management area.
States may implement parallel measures within their state waters (0-3 nm).
Groundfish fishing (often based on gear type) may be subject to depth, area, or seasonal restrictions as
described in Federal regulations at 50 CFR § 660.
Trawl Gear
Trawl gear is a cone or funnel-shaped net, which is towed or drawn through the water by one or two vessels.
Trawls are used both on the ocean bottom and off bottom. They may be fished with or without trawl doors.
They may employ warps or cables to herd fish. Trawl gear includes roller, bottom, and pelagic (mid-water)
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
80
December 2023
trawls, and as appropriate, trawls used to catch non-groundfish species but which incidentally intercept
groundfish. Trawl gear is complex, usually constructed from several panels of mesh and engineered with
varying ropes, chains, and trawl doors to target particular sizes, shapes, or species of fish. The Council has
historically worked with the trawl industry and the states, usually through the issuance of EFPs, to develop
new trawl gear restrictions or modifications intended to accomplish one or more FMP goals, usually the
reduction of bycatch. The following discussion of the Council’s efforts to modify trawl gear provides
examples of the types of trawl gear modifications that may be made to meet FMP goals, but does not limit
the range of future trawl gear restrictions.
In the early-mid 1990s, the Council engaged the trawl industry in a series of discussions on modifying trawl
nets to minimize juvenile fish bycatch. Since 1995, bottom trawl nets have been required to be constructed
with a minimum mesh size of 4.5 inches, and pelagic trawl nets with a minimum mesh size of three inches.
Minimum net mesh sizes are intended to allow immature fish to pass through trawl nets. To ensure the
success of minimum mesh size restrictions in allowing juvenile fish to escape trawl nets, the Council also
developed restrictions preventing trawlers from using a double-walled codend. Further restrictions related
to this objective include prohibitions on encircling the whole of a bottom trawl net with chafing gear and
restrictions on the minimum mesh size of pelagic trawl chafing gear (16 inches).
In 2000, the Council began to distinguish between large and small footrope trawl gear. Large footrope gear
is bottom trawl gear with a footrope diameter larger than eight inches, including any material (rollers,
bobbins, etc.) encircling the footrope. Small footrope gear is bottom trawl gear with a footrope diameter
of eight inches or smaller. Pelagic trawl gear is required to have unprotected footrope gear and is not
permitted to be encircled with chains, rollers, bobbins, or other material. Initially, the Council used the
distinction between large and small footrope gear to prohibit large footrope use for less abundant, nearshore,
and continental shelf species. Large footrope gear allows trawlers to access rockier areas by bouncing the
bottom of the trawl net over larger obstructions without tearing. Allowing only small footrope gear in
nearshore and shelf areas was intended to reduce trawl access to newly-designated overfished species and
their rockier habitats.
In 2002 the Council introduced Rockfish Conservation Areas (RCAs, Section 6.8.2), initially through
emergency rulemaking and later through permanent regulations, as a catch control mechanism, primarily
for overfished species. Large footrope trawl gear had been prohibited inshore of the trawl RCA (typically
the line approximating 100 fm). In 2018 the Council took action to remove the trawl RCA offshore of
Oregon and California because the trawl catch shares program (Amendment 20) effectively reduced
rockfish bycatch and the trawl RCA was no longer needed as a year-round catch control tool, but the trawl
RCA remains in place offshore of Washington. However, large footrope gear (larger than 8”) will still be
prohibited shoreward of the 100 fm contour, coastwide.
In 2005, the Council introduced new trawl gear requirements for small footrope trawl gear north of 40°10’
N. latitude. Trawlers operating inshore of the Trawl RCA are required to use selective flatfish trawl gear,
which is configured to reduce bycatch of rockfish while allowing the nets to retain flatfish. Selective flatfish
trawl nets have an ovoid trawl mouth opening that is wider than it is tall and the headropes on these nets
are recessed from the trawl mouth. This combination of a flattened oval shape and a recessed headrope
herds flatfish into the trawl net while allowing rockfish to slip up and over the headrope, without entering
the net. Groundfish trawlers worked with the State of Oregon to develop these nets in order to have greater
access to healthy flatfish stocks. The Council is working with the State of California to determine whether
the selective flatfish trawl net is also effective at reducing the bycatch of southern overfished species in
fisheries targeting more abundant southern stocks.
As part of a suite of measures intended to mitigate the adverse effects of fishing in groundfish EFH, the
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
81
December 2023
eight inch footrope restriction described here is made permanent, as listed in Section 6.6.1.1. A 100 fm
management line, the shoreward boundary of the trawl RCA when the permanent measure was
implemented, is identified as the seaward extent of the prohibition.
Non-trawl Gear
Non-trawl gear includes all legal commercial gear other than trawl gear. Fixed gear (anchored non-trawl
gear) includes longline, pot, set net, and stationary hook-and-line gear. Fixed gear must be marked,
individually or at each terminal end as appropriate, with a pole, flag, light, and radar reflector attached to
each end of the set, and a buoy clearly identifying the owner. In addition, fixed gear shall not be left
unattended for more than seven days. Reporting of fixed gear locations is not required, but fixed gear
fishermen are encouraged to do so with the U.S. Coast Guard. Reporting of fixed gear will facilitate
compensation claims by fishermen who have lost fixed gear.
Since 1982, groundfish traps have been required to be constructed with biodegradable escape panels in such
a manner that an opening of at least eight inches in diameter results when the escape panel deteriorates.
These biodegradable panels ensure that if a trap is lost or not attended for extended periods of time, it will
not continue to fish. Gear that has been lost and continues to capture fish while it is unattended is often
referred to as ghost fishing gear.
Mesh size in fish pots (traps) also affects the size of fish retained in the trap. By increasing the minimum
mesh size in all or part of the trap, small fish may be allowed to escape. There are no minimum mesh size
requirements for groundfish pot vessels. However, sablefish is the primary trap gear target species and
fishermen are usually paid more per pound for larger-sized sablefish. Thus, there are few incentives for
trap fishermen to use smaller mesh sizes.
Recreational Fisheries
Recreational fishing is fishing with authorized gear for personal use only, and not for sale or barter. The
only types of fishing gear authorized for recreational fishing are hook-and-line and spear. The definition
of hook-and-line gear for recreational fishing is the same as for commercial fishing. Hook limits,
restrictions on the number of hooks that may be used per fishing line, or on the size or configuration of
hooks used in a recreational fishery, have been established as routine management measures under Section
6.2.1. Hook limits are used in the recreational fishery to either constrain recreational fishery effort by
limiting the number of hooks per fishing line, or to select for certain species by limiting the size of hooks
used.
Bottom-contact Gear
In order to mitigate the adverse impacts of fishing on groundfish EFH, the Council may impose restrictions
on a range of gear types collectively termed bottom-contact gear. These are gear types that are designed or
modified to make contact with the sea floor during normal use. This includes, but is not limited to, beam
trawl, bottom trawl, dredge, fixed gear, set net, demersal seine, dinglebar gear, and other gear (including
experimental gear) designed or modified to make contact with the bottom. Gear used to harvest bottomdwelling organisms (e.g., by hand, rakes, or knives) are also considered bottom-contact gear for the purpose
of regulation. Other gear, midwater trawl gear for example, although it may occasionally make contact
with the sea floor during deployment, is not considered a bottom contact gear because the gear is not
designed for bottom contact, is not normally deployed so that it makes such contact, nor is such contact
normally more than intermittent. Similarly, vertical hook-and-line gear that during normal deployment is
not permanently in contact with the bottom would not be considered bottom-contact gear. For the purpose
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
82
December 2023
of regulation, specified legal gear types may be designated bottom contact or non-bottom-contact.
6.7
Catch Restrictions
The FMP authorizes the commercial and recreational harvest of species listed in Chapter 3 of this plan, and
provides for limiting the harvest of these species in Chapters 5 and 6. The Council uses a variety of
management measures to constrain rates of total catch, including direct limits on amounts that may be taken
and landed in commercial and recreational fisheries. Trip limits constrain landed catch in the commercial
fisheries; bag limits constrain landed catch in the recreational fisheries. Total catch limits constrain
incidental catch amounts permitted in a particular fishery or sector and may refer to either amounts of
incidentally caught non-target species that are not discarded (not considered bycatch under the MagnusonStevens Act), to amounts of non-target species that are discarded, or to both. Designating certain species
as prohibited ensures that the FMP complies with international, Federal, and state regulations and
management requirements for non-groundfish species.
Groundfish species harvested directly or incidentally in the territorial sea (0-3 nautical miles) will be
counted toward any catch limitations established under the authority of this FMP. These catch restrictions
apply to domestic fisheries off Washington, Oregon, and California. Procedures for designating and
adopting catch restrictions are found in Section 6.2.
All Fisheries
Quotas, size limits, and total catch limits may be applied to either commercial (groundfish or nongroundfish) or recreational fisheries.
Quotas. Quotas may be used for certain species. Quotas are specified harvest limits, the attainment of
which causes closure of the fishery for that species, gear type, or individual participant. Quotas may be
established for intentional allocation purposes or to terminate harvest at a specified point. They may be
specified for a particular area, gear type, time period, species or species group, and/or vessel or permit
holder. Quotas may apply to either target species or bycatch species.
Size limits. Size limits are used to prevent the harvest of immature fish or fish that have not reached their
full reproductive capacity. In some cases, size limits are used in reverse to harvest younger recruit or prerecruits and to protect older, larger spawning stock. Slot limits, which prohibit the retention of fish that are
either smaller than a lower size limit or larger than a higher size limit, are used to protect both immature
fish and more fecund older fish. Size limits may be applied to all fisheries, but are generally used where
fish are handled individually or in small groups such as trap-caught sablefish and recreational-caught fish.
Size limits lose their utility in cases where the survival of the fish returned to the sea is low (e.g., rockfish).
Total catch limits. The Council has historically managed total catch of groundfish species by monitoring
direct and incidental catch inseason, and then making inseason adjustments to catch and other restrictions
to ensure that annual total catch does not exceed allowable harvest amounts. Expected bycatch amounts of
overfished species are set aside as anticipated incidental take in various fisheries. Total catch limits, by
contrast, are sector-specific or vessel-specific limits on total catch (landed and discarded catch) of
groundfish FMU species. A cumulative trip limit is the maximum amount of groundfish species or species
group 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. In setting the biennial specifications
and management measures, the Council will review the total harvestable surplus of individual FMU species
or species groups and determine whether there are fishery sectors that may be managed with total catch
limits. If a sector or vessel achieves a total catch limit inseason, all vessels in the sector, in the case of
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
83
December 2023
sector limits, or the individual vessel, in the case of vessel limits, would have to cease fishing at that time,
unless the total catch limit is increased by means of a transfer or trade to the sector or vessel in question.
Fisheries managed with total catch limits also must be subject to monitoring and requirements that provide
real-time or projected total catch reporting (see Section 6.4).
Commercial Fisheries
Prohibited Species. It is unlawful for any person to retain any species of salmonid or Pacific halibut caught
by means of fishing gear authorized under this FMP, unless authorized by 50 CFR Part 300, Subparts E or
F; or Part 600, Subpart H. State regulations prohibit the landing of crab incidentally caught in trawl gear
off Washington and Oregon. However, trawl fishermen may land Dungeness crab in the State of California
north of Point Reyes in compliance with the state landing law. Specifically, salmonids are prohibited
species for trawl, longline, and pot gear. Halibut may be retained and landed by troll and longline gear only
during times and under conditions set by International Pacific Halibut Commission and/or other Federal
regulations. Salmon taken by troll gear may be retained and landed only as specified in troll salmon
regulations. Groundfish species or species groups under this FMP for which the quota has been reached
shall be treated in the same manner as prohibited species. Species identified as prohibited must be returned
to the sea as soon as practicable with a minimum of injury when caught and brought aboard, after allowing
for sampling by an observer, if any, unless other disposition procedures are specified by regulation.
Exceptions may be made for the recovery of tagged fish.
The FMP authorizes the designation of other prohibited species in the future or the removal of a species
from this classification, consistent with other applicable law for that species. The designation of other
prohibited species or the removal of species from this classification must be made through either the
biennial or annual specifications-and-management-measures rulemaking process (Section 6.2 C) or through
the full rulemaking process (Section 6.2 D).
Trip limits. A trip limit is the amount of groundfish that may be taken and retained, possessed, or landed
from a single fishing trip. Trip limits, trip frequency limits, and trip limits that vary by gear type or fishery
may be applied to either groundfish or non-groundfish fisheries. Trip landing limits and trip frequency
limits are used to control landings to delay achievement of a quota or HG and thus avoid premature closure
of a fishery if it is desirable to extend the fishery over a longer time. Trip landing limits also may be used
to minimize targeting on a species or species group while allowing landings of some level of incidental
catch. Trip landing limits are most effective in fisheries where the fisherman can control what is caught.
In a multispecies fishery, trip limits can discourage targeting while, at the same time, providing for the
landing of an incidental catch species that requires a greater degree of protection than the other species in
the multispecies catch. Conversely, a trip limit may be necessary to restrict the overall multispecies
complex catch in order to provide adequate protection to a single component of that catch.
Trip limits for non-groundfish fisheries. For each non-groundfish fishery considered, a reasonable limit on
the incidental groundfish catch may be established that is based on the best available information (from
EFPs, logbooks, observer data, or other scientifically acceptable sources). These limits will remain
unchanged unless substantial changes are observed in the condition of the groundfish resource or in the
effort or catch rate in the groundfish or non-groundfish fishery. Incidental limits or species categories may
be imposed or adjusted in accordance with the appropriate procedures described in Section 6.2. The
Secretary may accept or reject but not substantially modify the Council's recommendations. The objectives
of this framework are to:
•
Minimize discards in the non-groundfish fishery by allowing retention and sale, thereby increasing
fishing income;
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
84
December 2023
•
•
Discourage targeting on groundfish by the non-groundfish fleet; and
Reduce the administrative burden of reviewing and issuing EFPs for the sole purpose of enabling
non-groundfish fisheries to retain groundfish.
Recreational Fisheries
Bag limits. A bag limit is a restriction on the number of fish that may be taken and retained by an individual
angler operating in a recreational fishery, usually within a period of a single day. Bag limits have long been
used in the recreational fishery and are perhaps the oldest method used to control recreational fishing. The
intended effect of bag limits is to spread the available catch over a large number of anglers and to avoid
waste.
Boat limits. A boat limit is a cumulative restriction on the total number of fish that may be taken and
retained by all of the persons operating from a recreational fishery vessel. Boat limits restrict the overall
per-vessel catch in a recreational fishery. A boat limit may prevent an angler from taking what would
otherwise be allowed within an individual bag limit, depending on the number of fish already taken on that
boat.
Dressing requirements. Anglers may be subject to requirements that they retain the skin on their filleted
catch in order to allow port biologists and enforcement officers to better identify recreational catch by
species.
[Amendment 18, 19]
6.8
Time/Area Closures
The Council uses a variety of time/area closures to control the directed rate of catch of targeted species, to
reduce the incidental catch of non-target, protected (including overfished) species; and to prevent fishing
in specified areas in order to mitigate the adverse effects of such activities on groundfish habitat. Time/area
closures vary by type both in their permanency and in the size of area closed. When the Council sets fishing
seasons (Section 6.8.1) it generally uses a combination of latitude lines and depth zones to close sections
of the EEZ for part or all of a fishing year to one or more fishing sectors. RCAs (Section 6.8.2), by contrast,
are coastwide fishing area closures bounded on the east and west by lines connecting a series of coordinates
approximating a particular depth contour. RCAs are gear-specific and their eastern and western boundaries
may vary during the year. RCAs also may be polygons that are closed to fishing for a brief period (less
than one year) in order to provide short-term protection for the more migratory overfished or other protected
species. As part of Amendment 28, RCAs were removed off the coasts of Oregon and California.
Groundfish fishing areas (GFAs) (Section 6.8.4) are enclosed areas of high abundance of a particular
species or species group and may be used to allow targeting of a more abundant stock within that enclosed
area. Long-term bycatch mitigation closed areas (Section 6.8.4) have boundaries that do not vary by season
and are not usually modified annually or biennially. Ecologically important habitat closed areas and the
bottom trawl footprint closure (Section 0) are established in order to mitigate the adverse effects of fishing
on EFH. MPAs (Section 6.8.8) are longer-term, discrete closed areas with unchanging boundary lines that
may apply to one or more fishing sectors. Because the RCAs, the Yelloweye Rockfish Conservation Area,
and the Cowcod Conservation Areas have all been implemented to protect overfished groundfish species,
they are collectively referred to in Federal regulations as GCAs.
The coordinates defining the boundaries of time/area closures are published in Federal regulations. In order
to ensure consistency between the areas named in this FMP (see below) and corresponding areas defined
in Federal regulations, the Council may publish in the groundfish SAFE or other publication detailed
specifications for these time/area closures, by means of maps, lists of coordinates, or other descriptors.
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
85
December 2023
Seasons
Fishing seasons are closures of all or a portion of the West Coast EEZ for a particular period and time of
year. Seasons may be used to constrain the rate of fishing on a targeted species, to encourage targeting of
a more abundant stock during periods of higher aggregation, or to limit catch of a protected species during
its spawning season. Seasons may be for the entire fleet, for particular sectors within the fleet, for regions
of the coast, or for individual vessels. Designation and adoption of seasons must be made through either a
specifications-and-management-measures rulemaking (Section 6.2 C) or a full rulemaking (Section 6.2 D).
Seasons have been used to manage the commercial Pacific whiting trawl and LE fixed gear fisheries. The
non-tribal whiting fishery is divided into three sectors: catcher boats that deliver to shorebased processing
plants, catcher vessels that deliver to MS at-sea, and at-sea catcher-processors. Each of these sectors is
managed with its own season. The shorebased sector also includes an early season for waters off California,
to allow vessels in that area to access whiting when it is migrating through waters off California. Both the
whiting trawl and the LE fixed gear sablefish fishery are managed with a season that starts in spring and
may run to the end of the year, if quota is available. Both the whiting trawl and fixed gear sablefish seasons
are specified in regulation and factors affecting the season duration include, but are not limited to, concerns
about incidental catch of other species. Outside the primary seasons for both whiting trawl and fixed gear
sablefish, incidental catch allowances (e.g., trip limits) are provided.
In addition to the whiting and sablefish seasons, intended to constrain the directed catch of the target stocks
within a particular period, commercial fisheries may be constrained by season to protect overfished species.
Recreational fisheries also may be managed with fishing seasons, either to constrain the directed catch of
target species or to reduce the incidental catch of protected species. Fishing seasons with one or more
closed periods during the fishing year are intended to reduce catch rates of both more abundant and
protected stocks. Seasonal closures are used off all three states—in combination with bag limits, RCAs,
and other measures—to prevent recreational fisheries from exceeding allowable harvest levels.
[Amended: 30]
6.8.2
Rockfish Conservation Areas
In September 2002, NMFS implemented an emergency rule at the Council’s request to implement a
Darkblotched Rockfish Conservation Area to close continental shelf/slope waters north of 40°10’ N.
latitude. Since January 2003, the Council has used coastwide RCAs, which vary by gear type, to reduce
the incidental catch of overfished species in waters where they are more abundant. Appendix F describes
the role RCAs play in this FMP’s overfished species rebuilding plans. RCAs may also be used to control
catch of groundfish species.
Different gear types have greater or lesser effects on different overfished species. Thus, RCAs are designed
to be gear-specific to better target protection for the species most affected by each gear group. For example,
darkblotched rockfish and Pacific ocean perch are continental slope species that are most frequently taken
with trawl gear, which means that the Trawl RCA must extend out to greater depths in order to protect these
species. Under Amendment 28, the Council took action to remove the groundfish trawl RCA off Oregon
and California because the trawl catch shares program (Amendment 20) effectively reduced rockfish
bycatch and the trawl RCA was no longer needed as a year-round catch control tool. The trawl RCA is a
management measure that remains in place off Washington. Yelloweye rockfish, in contrast, is more
frequently taken with hook-and-line gear, which means that both the commercial and recreational hook-
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
86
December 2023
and-line fisheries require yelloweye rockfish protection measures as part of that species’ rebuilding plan.
The Non-Trawl RCA is concentrated over the continental shelf. Recreational fisheries can use RCAs as a
means to control catch of groundfish species and could use them in conjunction with other recreational
management measures such as season closures and bag limits.
RCAs are typically bounded on the east and west by lines drawn between a series of latitude/longitude
coordinates approximating certain depth contours. An RCA may also be a polygon, designated by lines
drawn between a series of latitude/longitude coordinates, which is closed to fishing for some period less
than a year in duration. RCA boundary lines are described in Federal regulations at 50 CFR § 660.71-74.
The size and shape of the RCAs may be adjusted inseason via the routine management measures process
(Section 6.2.1) by using previously adopted potential RCA boundary lines. Designation and adoption of
new potential RCA boundary lines must be made through either a specifications-and-managementmeasures rulemaking (Section 6.2 C) or a full rulemaking (Section 6.2 D).
[Amended: 30]
6.8.3
Block Area Closures
Block Area Closures (BACs) are a groundfish specific management tool introduced as part of Amendment
28. BAC boundary lines are latitudes and depth contour approximations described in Federal regulations at
50 CFR §660.11 and §§71-74. BACs (one or more) may be closed or reopened inseason via the routine
management measures process (Section 6.2.1) using latitude and longitude boundary lines defined in
regulation. One or more of those polygons, as necessary may be closed to vessels using groundfish bottom
trawl gear, midwater trawl gear, or non-trawl gear to control harvest of groundfish species or to reduce the
catch of protected or prohibited species. BACs are available in the EEZ off Washington, Oregon, and
California and are intended as a catch control mechanism, not for habitat protection.
[Amended: 30]
6.8.4
Groundfish Fishing Areas
GFAs are areas of known higher abundance of a particular species or species group, enclosed by straight
lines connecting a series of coordinates. A GFA designated for a more abundant species may be used to
constrain fishing for that species within that particular GFA. For example, fishing for schooling species,
such as petrale sole or chilipepper rockfish, could be allowed within GFAs for those species, but not
permitted outside of the GFAs, where fisheries for those species might have higher incidental catches of
overfished species.
Designation and adoption of GFAs must be made through either a specifications-and-managementmeasures rulemaking (Section 6.2 C) or a full rulemaking (Section 6.2 D)
6.8.5
Long-term Bycatch Mitigation Closed Areas
The Council uses a variety of time/area closures to reduce incidental catch of protected species in fisheries
targeting groundfish. The extent and configuration of these areas do not vary seasonally and they are not
usually modified through inseason or biennial management actions. The location and extent of these areas
are described by coordinates published in permanent regulations. Modification of such permanent
regulations would require full notice-and-comment rulemaking as described at Section 6.2 D. As of January
1, 2024, there are five such closures:
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
87
December 2023
1. Klamath River Conservation Zone (KRCZ): Established in Federal regulations in 1993 to reduce
the bycatch of threatened and endangered salmon stocks taken incidentally in the Pacific whiting
fisheries. The KRCZ is closed to trawling for whiting. Its boundaries are defined as the ocean area
surrounding the Klamath River mouth, bounded on the north by 41°38.80 N. latitude, on the west
by 124°23.00’ W. longitude, and on the south by 41°26.63’ N. latitude.
2. Columbia River Conservation Zone (CRCZ): Established in Federal regulations in 1993 to reduce
the bycatch of threatened and endangered salmon stocks taken incidentally in the Pacific whiting
fisheries. The CRCA is closed to trawling for whiting. Its boundaries are defined as the ocean area
surrounding the Columbia River mouth, bounded by a line extending for six nautical miles due
west from North Head along 46°18.00’ N. latitude to 124°13.30’ W. longitude, then southerly along
a line of 167 true to 46°11.10' N. latitude by 124°11.00’ W. longitude, then northeast along Red
Buoy Line to the tip of the south jetty.
3. Western Cowcod Conservation Area (CCA): First established via Federal Register notice in 2001
as an overfished species rebuilding measure. Incorporated into the FMP (Section 4.5.4.6) via
Amendment 16-3 and established in Federal regulation in 2005 to reduce the bycatch of cowcod
taken incidentally in all commercial and recreational fisheries for groundfish. The Western CCA
is an area south of Point Conception defined by a series of coordinates describing straight lines
enclosing a polygon. In 2024, the Western CCA was removed for non-trawl fisheries under
Amendment 32 and remains in place for trawl gear.
4. Eastern Cowcod Conservation Area: First established via Federal Register notice in 2001 as an
overfished species rebuilding measure. Incorporated into the FMP (Section 4.5.4.6) via
Amendment 16-3 and established in Federal regulation in 2005 to reduce the bycatch of cowcod
taken incidentally in all commercial and recreational fisheries for groundfish. The Eastern CCA is
an area west of San Diego defined by a series of coordinates describing straight lines enclosing a
polygon. In 2024, the Eastern CCA was removed for non-trawl fisheries under Amendment 32 and
remains in place for trawl gear.
5. Yelloweye Rockfish Conservation Areas (YRCA): First established via Federal Register notice
2003 as an overfished species rebuilding measure. Incorporated in the FMP (Appendix F) via
Amendment 16-3 and established in Federal regulation in 2005 to reduce the bycatch of yelloweye
rockfish in the recreational fisheries for groundfish and halibut. Specific YRCAs and their
coordinates are defined at 50 CFR 660.70 with closures defined in Subparts C-G.
6.8.6
Essential Fish Habitat Conservation Areas
The Council has identified discrete areas that are closed to fishing with specified gear types, or are only
open to fishing with specified gear types. These essential fish habitat conservation areas (EFHCAs) are
applicable to all fisheries unless specified, and are intended to mitigate the adverse effects of fishing on
groundfish EFH. They may be categorized as bottom trawl EFHCAs (BT EFHCAs) and bottom contact
EFCHAs (BC EFHCAs). For the purpose of regulation each type of closed area should be treated
differently. For the purposes of BT EFHCAs, the definition of bottom trawl gear in Federal regulations
applies (see also Section 6.6.1.2) except in waters off of California, where Scottish seine (or fly dragging)
gear is not considered bottom trawl gear. The Scottish seine method deploys a weighted rope on the sea
bottom in a large polygonal shape, attached to a codend net. The rope is pulled across the bottom, herding
the fish towards the codend, which is then hauled back to the vessel. For the purposes of BC EFHCAs, the
definition of bottom contact gear in this FMP (Section 6.6.3) and in Federal regulations applies; the areas
identified include specific bottom contact gear restrictions.
The extent and configuration of these areas do not vary seasonally and they are not usually modified through
inseason or biennial management actions. The location and extent of these areas are described by a series
of latitude-longitude coordinates enclosing a polygon published in permanent Federal regulations. For
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
88
December 2023
areas closed to bottom trawl gear, the habitat conservation framework may be used to eliminate such closed
areas or modify their location or extent. Modification of permanent regulations describing these closed
areas would require full notice-and-comment rulemaking as described at Section 6.2 D. As of June 30,
2006, under Amendment 19, there were 50 such closures. With the implementation of Amendment 28,
there were several additional closures and spatial modifications to several existing closures. As part of
Amendment 32, the Council took action to add a subset of BC EFHCAs which apply only to non-trawl
groundfish and non-tribal commercial directed Pacific halibut.
Bottom Trawl EFHCAs
Off of Washington:
1. Olympic 2
2. Biogenic 1
3. Biogenic 2
4. Quinault Canyon†
5. Grays Canyon*
6. Biogenic 3
7. Willapa Canyonhead†
8. Willapa Deep†
Off of Oregon:
1. Astoria Canyon
2. Astoria Deep†
3. Nehalem Bank/Shale Pile*
4. Garibaldi Reef N†
5. Garibaldi Reef S†
6. Siletz Deepwater
7. Daisy Bank/Nelson Island*
8. Newport Rockpile/Stonewall Bank*
9. Hydrate Ridge†
10. Heceta Bank*
11. Deepwater off Coos Bay
12. Arago Reef†
13. Bandon High Spot*
14. Rogue Canyon
15. Rogue River Reef†
Off of California:
1. Brush Patch†
2. Trinidad Canyon†
3. Mad River Rough Patch†
4. Samoa Deepwater†
5. Eel River Canyon*
6. Blunts Reef*
7. Mendocino Ridge*
8. Delgada Canyon*
9. Tolo Bank
10. Navarro Canyon†
11. Point Arena North
12. Point Arena South Biogenic Area*
13. The Football†
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
89
December 2023
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
Gobblers Knob†
Point Reyes Reef†
Cordell Bank/Biogenic Area*
Rittenburg Bank†
Farallon Islands/Fanny Shoal/Cochrane Bank*
Farallon Escarpment†
Half Moon Bay
Pescadaro Reef†
Pigeon Point Reef†
Ascension Canyonhead†
South of Davenport†
Monterey Bay/Canyon*
West of Sobranes Point†
Point Sur Deep*
Big Sur Coast/Port San Luis*
La Cruz Canyon†
West of Piedras Blancas State Marine Conservation Area†
East San Lucia Bank
Point Conception
Hidden Reef/Kidney Bank
Catalina Island
Potato Bank*
Cherry Bank
Cowcod Conservation Area East
Southern California Bight†
*These areas were modified as part of Amendment 28.
†These areas were added as part of Amendment 28.
Bottom Contact EFHCAs
Off of Oregon:
1. Thompson Seamount
2. President Jackson Seamount
Off of California:
1. Cordell Bank (within 50 fm isobath)
2. Harris Point
3. Richardson Rock
4. Scorpion
5. Painted Cove
6. Davidson Seamount (fishing below 500 fm prohibited, see below)
7. Anacapa Island
8. Carrington Point
9. Judith Rock
10. Skunk Point
11. Footprint
12. Gull Island
13. South Point
14. Santa Barbara
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
90
December 2023
All of the BC EFHCAs off of California occur within the Cordell Bank, Monterey, or Channel Islands
National Marine Sanctuaries. Mitigation measures implemented under Magnuson-Stevens Act authority
are also intended to support the goals and objectives of these sanctuaries. In the case of Davidson Seamount,
it is unlawful for any person to fish with bottom contact gear, or any other gear that is deployed deeper than
500 fm, within the area defined in Federal regulations. Closing the water column below 500 fm to fishing
in addition to prohibiting fishing that contacts the bottom addresses Sanctuary goals and objectives while
practicably mitigating the adverse effects of fishing on groundfish EFH.
As a part of Amendment 32, the Council developed EFHCAs to prohibit non-trawl bottom contact
groundfish and non-tribal commercial directed halibut fishing activity. These EFHCAs generally overlap
with BT EFHCAs. All of these EFHCAs are off of Oregon:
1. Nehalem Bank East
2. Bandon High Spot East
3. Arago Reef West
4. Garibaldi Reef North*
5. Garibaldi Reef South*
* These areas are the same as the BT EFHCAs.
These closures and coordinates defining their boundaries are published in Federal regulations.
6.8.7
Bottom Trawl Footprint Closure
As a precautionary measure, to mitigate the adverse effects of fishing on groundfish EFH, the West Coast
EEZ seaward of a line approximating the 700 fm isobath is closed to bottom trawling to the outer extent of
groundfish EFH (3,500 m, see Section 7.2, or the seaward boundary of the EEZ). This is called the footprint
closure because the 700 fm isobath is an approximation of the historic extent of bottom trawling in the
management area. This closure is therefore intended to prevent the expansion of bottom trawling into areas
where groundfish EFH has not historically been adversely affected by bottom trawling. Because this
closure applies to an area where bottom trawling effort has been limited or nonexistent, the socioeconomic
impacts of this closure are modest. Under Amendment 28, the boundary line that approximates the 700 fm
isobath off the north California coast and off Monterey Bay, CA was modified slightly, resulting in
relatively small reopenings and closures that affect less than 20 mi2.
6.8.8
Marine Protected Areas
Executive Order (EO) 13158 on MPAs was signed on May 26, 2000. This EO defines MPAs as “any area
of the marine environment that has been reserved by Federal, state, territorial, tribal, or local laws or
regulations to provide lasting protection to part or all of the natural or cultural resources therein.” Under
this FMP, MPAs include all marine areas closed to fishing for any or all gear group(s), by the FMP or
implementing Federal regulations for conservation purposes, and which have stable boundaries over time
(thereby providing lasting protection). In 2005, the Marine Protected Areas Federal Advisory Committee
on Establishing and Managing a National System of Marine Protected Areas made several
recommendations on specifying this definition of MPA. They define lasting protection as enduring long
enough to enhance the conservation, protection, or sustainability of natural or cultural marine resources.
The minimum duration of “lasting” protection ranges from ten years to indefinite, depending on the type
and purpose of MPA. The use of the term “indefinite” indicates permanent protection while recognizing
that an MPA designation and level of protection may change for various reasons, including changes in the
resources so protected and in how society values those resources. Although all of the time/area closures
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
91
December 2023
described in Sections 6.8.2-6.8.6 may be modified through full notice-and-comment rulemaking, most
either are practically permanent (portions of the GCAs) or are intended to be permanent (habitat closed
areas and the trawl footprint closure). These time/area closures offer lasting protection and may be
considered MPAs. New MPAs may be established or these MPAs may be revised through either a
specifications-and-management-measures rulemaking (Section 6.2 C) or a full rulemaking (Section 6.2 D).
[Amendment 18, 19]
Deep Water Bottom Contact Gear Closure
Amendment 28 to the Groundfish FMP established a deep water bottom contact gear closure in the EEZ in
waters deeper than 3500m (the deepest extent of EFH). Although still inside the EEZ, waters deeper than
3500m are not identified as groundfish EFH. Amendment 28 closed these waters to all bottom contact
fishing gear, to protect deep water habitats including deep sea corals. Because these waters are outside of
Groundfish EFH, the closure will be implemented via MSA discretionary authorities in Sections 303(b)(2).
Exceptions could be made to this closure, but only if a permittee or vessel owner were to apply for and
receive approval from the Council to do so via an EFP issued by NMFS, through established procedures
described in Chapter 8.
[Amendment 28]
Groundfish Exclusion Areas
Groundfish Exclusion Areas (GEAs) are intended to mitigate impacts to sensitive environments from
certain groundfish fishing activity. GEAs may be established or revised through either a specifications-andmanagement-measures rulemaking (Section 6.2 C) or a full rulemaking (Section 6.2 D). Amendment 32 to
the Groundfish FMP established eight GEAs within the Southern California Bight to protect sensitive
environments from non-trawl groundfish fishing. Coordinates for GEAs can be found in the Federal
Regulations. 6.26.2 Current GEAs are:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Hidden Reef
West of Santa Barbara Island
Potato Bank
107/118 Bank
Cherry Bank
Seamount 109
Northeast Bank
The 43-Fathom Spot
[Amendment 32]
6.9
Measures to Control Fishing Capacity, Including Permits and Licenses
Permits and licenses are used to enumerate participants in an industry and, if eligibility requirements are
established or the number of permits is limited, to restrict participation. Participation in the Washington,
Oregon, and California groundfish fishery was partially limited beginning in 1994 when the Federal vessel
license limitation program was implemented (Amendment 6). Subsequently, Amendment 9 further limited
participation in the fixed-gear sablefish fishery by establishing a sablefish endorsement. (Chapter 11
describes the groundfish LE program in detail.) In December 2003, NMFS reduced participation in the LE
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
92
December 2023
trawl fleet by buying the fishing rights to 91 LE trawl vessels and the Federal and state permits associated
with those vessels. There is currently no Federal permit requirement for other commercial participants
(fishers or processors) or recreational participants (private recreational or charter). The Council may
determine that effective management of the fishery requires accurate enumeration of the number of
participants in these sectors and may establish a permit requirement to accomplish this. In addition, some
form of limitation on participation may be necessary in order to protect the resource or to achieve the
objectives of the FMP.
Other forms of effort control commonly used include vessel length endorsements, restrictions on the
number of units of gear, or restrictions on the size of trawls, or length of longlines, or the number of hooks
or pots. Effort restrictions related to gear may also be useful in reducing bycatch.
Permit applications for the domestic groundfish fishery, including but not limited to exempted fishing
permits, are authorized by this FMP. Such applications may include vessel name, length, type,
documentation number or state registration number, radio call sign, home port, and capacity; owner and/or
operator’s name, mailing address, telephone number, and relationship of the applicant to the owner; type
of fishing gear to be used, if any; signature of the applicant, and any other information found necessary for
identification and registration of the vessel.
General Provisions For Permits
Federal permits may be required for individuals or vessels that harvest groundfish and for individuals or
facilities (including vessels) that process groundfish or take delivery of live groundfish. In determining
whether to require a harvesting or processing permit, and in establishing the terms and conditions for issuing
a permit, the Council may consider any relevant factors, including whether a permit:
1. Will enhance the collection of biological, economic, or social data.
2. Will provide better enforcement of laws and regulations, including those designed to ensure
conservation and management and those designed to protect consumer health and safety.
3. Will help achieve the goals and objectives of the FMP.
4. Will help prevent or reduce overcapacity in the fishery.
5. May be transferred, and under what conditions.
Separate permits or endorsements may be required for harvesting and processing or for vessels or facilities
based on size, type of fishing gear used, species harvested or processed, or such other factors that may be
appropriate. The permits and endorsements are also subject to sanctions, including revocation, as provided
by Section 308 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
In establishing a permit requirement, the Council will follow the full-rulemaking procedures in Section 6.2
D.
Commercial Fisheries Permits
All U.S. commercial fishing vessels are required by state laws to be in possession of a current fishing or
landing permit from the appropriate state agency in order to land groundfish in the Washington, Oregon,
and California area. Federal LE permits authorize fishing within limits and restrictions specified for those
permits. Vessels without such permits are also subject to the specified limits and restrictions for the open
access fishery. In the event that a Federal fishing or access permit is required, failure to obtain and possess
such a Federal permit will be in violation of this FMP.
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
93
December 2023
Recreational Fisheries Permits
All U.S. recreational fishermen are required by state laws to obtain a recreational permit or license in order
to fish for groundfish. In the event that a Federal license or permit is required, failure to obtain and possess
such Federal permit will be in violation of this FMP.
Processor Permits
Federal permits also may be required for groundfish processors. Under the trawl rationalization program
(see Section 6.9.3.1) mothership processors in the Pacific whiting fishery must possess a mothership (MS)
permit. Like groundfish LE permits (see Chapter 11), Pacific whiting mothership (MS) permits are
transferrable once initially distributed to qualifying vessels at the beginning of the trawl rationalization
program. To qualify for initial issuance of an MS permit at the beginning of the program, a processing
vessel must have processed at least 1,000 mt of Pacific whiting in each of any two years from 1997 through
2003.
Sector Endorsements
The Council may establish sector endorsements, such as with the LE fixed gear sablefish fishery. Sector
endorsements would limit participation in a fishery for a particular species or species group to persons,
vessels, or permits meeting Council-established qualifying criteria. Participants in a sector-endorsed
fishery may be subject to sector total catch limit management. A sector endorsement, whether it is applied
to vessels that already hold LE permits or to those in the open access or recreational fisheries, is a license
limitation program.
Fishery Rationalization
The Trawl Rationalization Programs
The trawl rationalization program applies to vessels holding trawl-endorsed groundfish LE permits (and
mothership processors registered to mothership permits). The program is intended to reduce fishery
capacity, minimize bycatch, and meet other goals of the FMP. The program replaces most cumulative
landing limits (in both whiting and non-whiting shoreside LE trawl sectors) with individual fishing quotas.
Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, “an ‘individual fishing quota’ means a Federal permit under a limited
access system to harvest a quantity of fish, expressed by a unit or units representing a percentage of the
total allowable catch of a fishery that may be received or held for exclusive use by a person.” The Council
may establish IFQ programs for any commercial fishery sector.
The Pacific whiting mothership sector is managed through a system of cooperatives (co-ops) under which
catcher vessels choosing to fish in a co-op would be obligated to deliver their catch to an associated
mothership processor. Each year motherships and catcher vessels must identify which co-op they plan to
participate in. If they do not plan to join a co-op for that year they participate in a non-co-op fishery. The
Pacific whiting catcher-processor sector operates as a single, voluntary co-op. If the voluntary catcherprocessor co-op dissolves, any allocation to the sector will be divided equally among the catcher-processor
endorsed permits.
Appendix E describes the details of the trawl rationalization program that was implemented in Federal
regulations.
The trawl rationalization program described in Appendix E may be modified through regulatory
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
94
December 2023
amendments proposed by the Council per §303(c) of the MSA and reviewed by the Secretary per §304(b).
Appendix E may be revised from time to time to reflect changes to the program, but changes can be made
without submitting such changes for review by the Secretary as described in §304(a) of the MSA. The
Council will establish a process for considering recommended changes to the regulations.
Rationalization of Other Fishery Sectors
IFQ programs could be established in other fishery sectors for the purposes of reducing fishery capacity,
minimizing bycatch, and to meet other goals of the FMP. Participants in an IFQ fishery may be subject to
individual total catch limit management (Section 6.7).
Facilitating Public-Private Partnerships that Mitigate EFH Impacts and May
Reduce Capacity
If consistent with the goals and objectives of this FMP, the Council may facilitate and encourage private
purchases of groundfish LE permits and corresponding vessels in order to mitigate EFH impacts by
reducing fleet capacity. Private purchases intended solely to reduce fishing capacity would permanently
foreclose the future use of subject permits and vessels in west coast groundfish fisheries, if like the
federally-sponsored west coast groundfish trawl buyout program. Aside from any socioeconomic benefits,
reducing fleet fishing capacity can mitigate adverse impacts of fishing on groundfish EFH to the degree
that fishing activity with adverse consequences is reduced. In such cases where multiple objectives are
being addressed, arrangements other than the immediate or permanent retirement of the permit and/or vessel
may be a feature of the agreement. Contracts for the purchase of groundfish LE permits and/or vessels may
contain conditions specifying that the execution of the contract is contingent on the implementation of other
measures to mitigate the adverse impacts of fishing on groundfish EFH. At the same time, the Council will
take into account impacts on the segment of the fishing industry and fishing communities that are not a
party to such contracts, and also take into account related FMP objectives 12, 14, 15, and 16 (Section 2.1).
Mitigation measures may be contingent on Council action or recommendations, and the Council will strive
to conduct its decision-making in such a way as to facilitate the private negotiation of such contract
conditions. If contingent mitigation measures include establishing new areas closed to bottom trawl, or the
modification of the location and extent of existing areas, the habitat conservation framework described in
Section 6.2.4 may be used to implement such areas by regulatory amendment, using the procedures
described under Section 6.2 D.
Capacity Reduction Data Collection
The current condition of the groundfish fisheries of the Washington, Oregon, and California region is such
that further reduction of the LE fleet may be required in the near future. Research and monitoring programs
may need to be developed and implemented for the fishery so that information required in a capacity
reduction program is available. Such data should indicate the character and level of participation in the
fishery, including (1) investment in vessel and gear; (2) the number and type of units of gear; (3) the
distribution of catch; (4) the value of catch; (5) the economic returns to the participants; (6) mobility
between fisheries; and (7) various social and community considerations.
[Amendment 18, 19, 20]
6.10
Fishery Enforcement and Vessel Safety
The enforceability of fishery management measures affects the health of marine resources and the safety of
human life at sea. When considering new management measures or reviewing the current management
regime, the Council will consider the fishery and its characteristics, assess whether the measures are
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
95
December 2023
sufficiently enforceable to accomplish the objective of those management measures, and describe measures
to be taken to reduce risks to the measures’ enforceability. For example, the Council introduced depthbased management (See RCAs at Section 6.8.2) in 2003 to protect overfished groundfish species with areas
closed to fishing. The Council’s subsequent recommendation to implement VMS requirements improved
the enforceability of the closed areas so that the closed areas could accomplish the Council’s management
objective of reducing overfished species catch by preventing vessels from fishing in areas where overfished
species are more abundant.
If new management measures are under development, the Council will determine whether requirements are
needed to facilitate the enforcement of new management measures.
During the development of new management measures, the Council will consider what measures are also
needed to facilitate enforcement. When assessing if the measures are sufficiently enforceable, information
should be obtained from:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Fish tickets inspections and audits;
Enforcement reports;
Discussions with State and Federal fisheries agents and officers;
USCG input;
Observer program reports;
Stakeholder input; and
Other relevant information suggested by the Enforcement Consultants and the public.
When assessing if the measures are sufficiently enforceable, consideration should be given to enforcement
risks from:
•
•
•
•
•
Regulations that are complex and difficult to understand: Regulations that are clear in meaning and
devoid of exemptions allow little interpretation of their meaning, making it clear to fishers what
they can or cannot do.
Catch limit evasion: This describes the potential for operators to either not declare, under-declare
or report catch as other species or species groups on fish tickets; the potential for fishing vessels to
offload to unauthorized processing or tending vessels at sea.
Obscure chain of possession: Required documentation and labeling requirements make the fish
distribution system more transparent. The ability to track a product back from the distributor to the
harvester gives enforcement officers a powerful tool. It also promotes voluntary compliance by
distributors and harvesters alike.
Unaccounted-for bycatch: This describes the potential for vessels to high grade their catch (discard
undesirable sizes or species of fish in order to retain desirable sizes or species) in a manner that
increases bycatch mortality.
Unauthorized fishing: This describes the potential for operators to fish undetected in closed areas,
in restricted areas with unauthorized gear, or during closed seasons.
Managing Enforcement Risks
The objective of enforcement is to ensure in a cost-effective way that all fishing is conducted in accordance
with fishery regulations. During the development of new management measures, the Council will consider
what measures are also needed to facilitate enforcement. When managing the enforcement risks,
consideration should be given to:
•
Complexity: Complexity in a management regime can reduce enforceability by making the regime
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
96
December 2023
•
•
•
•
•
•
confusing to both fishery participants and enforcement agents. When the Council is developing
new management measures, it shall evaluate those measures for their complexity to determine
whether management complexity is necessary and whether there are ways to reduce the complexity
of new management recommendations.
Availability and adequacy of surveillance, monitoring, and inspections: What fishery surveillance,
monitoring, and inspection methods are available from Federal and State agencies? Are these
methods adequate to enforce the measure or measures under Council consideration?
Compliance behavior: Are the proposed measures adequately enforceable such that they will
change fisher behavior in a way that achieves intended results? Are the proposed measures
adequately enforceable such that fishers who attempt to evade detection of illegal behavior are not
reducing fishing opportunities for those fishers who comply with management measures?
Unintended consequences: The Council should evaluate the range of behaviors and possible effects
that could result if regulations were not adequately enforceable, including: collusion between
processors and harvesters, high-value catch recorded as low-value catch, direct sales to retailers
without fish tickets being recorded, offloading at-sea to unauthorized vessels, etc.
Educational programs for public: How does the Council plan to educate the public on new
management measures and requirements? Do Council public education efforts, in combination
with Federal, State, and Tribal efforts allow adequate time for fishery participants to be made aware
of changes to regulations?
Officer training: Have Federal and State enforcement agents and officers been adequately trained
in new fishery management regulations? Do the Enforcement Consultants or the Council have
training recommendations to ensure that new regulations are clearly understood by those enforcing
the regulations?
Consistent regulations: To the extent possible, similar management measures across the Pacific
Council’s FMPs, and between State and Federal jurisdictions, should be implemented through a
consistent and common regulatory structure.
Vessel Safety
The Council will take safety issues into account in developing management recommendations, although
some safety issues may not be under Council control. For example, the Council may set a fishing season
such that participants are able to choose when they participate, but the Council cannot assure that weather
conditions will be favorable to all participants throughout that season. The Council will review any new
regulatory or management measures recommendations it makes to determine whether such
recommendations:
•
•
Improve the safety of fishing conditions for fishery participants.
Offer new safety risks for fishery participants that could be remedied with revisions to the proposed
requirements that would not otherwise weaken the effects of those requirements.
On safety issues, the Council shall consult with its EC and the public, and particularly with the U.S. Coast
Guard on any search-and-rescue issues that might arise through proposed regulatory requirements.
Vessel and Gear Identification
The FMP authorizes vessel and gear identification requirements, which may be modified as necessary to
facilitate enforcement and vessel recognition. Vessel marking requirements are described in Federal
regulations at 50 CFR §660.20 and generally require that each vessel be clearly marked with its vessel
number, such that it may be identified from the air or from approaching rescue/enforcement vessels at sea.
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
97
December 2023
Vessels may also be identified via transmissions of their position locations under a VMS program. Federal
requirements implementing the Council’s VMS program are found in regulation at 50 CFR §660.14. Gear
identification requirements are described in Federal regulations at 50 CFR §660.20 and generally require
that fixed gear be marked with the associated vessel’s number so that the gear’s owner may be identified.
Prohibitions and Penalties
Fishery participants are subject both to Federal prohibitions that apply nationwide and to those that apply
just to participants in the west coast groundfish fisheries. Federal regulations on nationwide fishery
prohibitions are found at 50 CFR §600.725. Federal regulations on fishery prohibitions specific to the west
coast groundfish fisheries are found at 50 CFR §660.12. Participants in the west coast groundfish fisheries
are also subject to vessel operation and safety requirements of the U.S. Coast Guard (see Federal regulations
at Titles 33 and 46).
Federal regulations at 50 CFR §600.735 state “Any person committing, or fishing vessel used in the
commission of a violation of the Magnuson-Stevens Act or any other statute administered by NOAA and/or
any regulation issued under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, is subject to the civil and criminal penalty
provisions and civil forfeiture provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, to this section, to 15 CFR part 904
(Civil Procedures), and to other applicable law.”
[Amendment 18]
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
98
December 2023
CHAPTER 7
7.1
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT
How This FMP Addresses Provisions in the Magnuson-Stevens Act Relating to
Essential Fish Habitat
The Magnuson-Stevens Act (as amended by the Sustainable Fisheries Act) requires FMPs to “describe and
identify essential fish habitat…, minimize to the extent practicable adverse effects on such habitat caused
by fishing, and identify other actions to encourage the conservation and enhancement of such habitat”
(§303(a)(7)). The Magnuson-Stevens Act defines EFH as “those waters and substrate necessary to fish for
spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity.” NMFS interpreted this definition in its regulations as
follows: “waters” include aquatic areas and their associated physical, chemical, and biological properties
that are used by fish, and may include areas historically used by fish where appropriate; “substrate” includes
sediment, hard bottom, structures underlying the waters, and associated biological communities;
“necessary” means “the habitat required to support a sustainable fishery and the managed species’
contribution to a healthy ecosystem”; and “spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity” covers the
full life cycle of a species. For the purposes of identifying groundfish EFH, artificial structures are excluded
from the definition of substrate unless designated as HAPC in this FMP (Section 7.3); notwithstanding
other criteria, HAPCs are part of groundfish EFH under the descriptive criteria listed in Section 7.2 of this
FMP.
The description and identification of EFH must include habitat for an individual species, but may be
designated for an assemblage of species, if appropriate to the FMP. Regulations at 50 CFR 600, Subpart J
provide further guidance on these required FMP contents. These guidelines recommend that FMPs identify
HAPCs, which are specified areas of EFH meeting the criteria described in Section 7.3 of this FMP.
To ensure that habitat-related decisions are based on the best scientific information available (BSIA),
scientific and technical analyses are typically reviewed by the Pacific Council’s Scientific and Statistical
Committee (SSC), as required by the Magnuson Stevens Act. The Pacific Council’s SSC reviewed
numerous analyses throughout the review/revision process informing Amendment 28. In addition, NMFS
reviews FMP and regulatory actions to determine consistency with National Standard 2, which requires the
use of BSIA.
In addition to requiring FMPs to include practicable measures to minimize to the extent practicable the
adverse effects of fishing on EFH, the Magnuson-Stevens Act also provides a mechanism for NMFS and
the Council to address non-fishing impacts to EFH.
These requirements are addressed as follows:
•
Section 7.2 provides a succinct description of groundfish EFH. Appendix B to this FMP provides
detailed descriptions of EFH for groundfish FMU species, including maps (and/or links) showing
EFH for individual groundfish species/life stages.
•
Section 7.3 describes the groundfish HAPCs that have been identified by the Council, including
the criteria used to identify those areas.
•
Section 7.4 provides an overview of the management measures available to the Council for
minimizing the adverse impacts of fishing to EFH. Measures adopted by the Council are described
in the appropriate sections of Chapter 6. Appendix C describes an assessment methodology for the
effects of fishing on Pacific Coast groundfish EFH. This provides the basis for determining the
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
99
December 2023
need for management measures.
•
Section 7.5 describes how Federal agencies must consult with NMFS and/or the Council about any
ongoing or proposed action they may authorize, fund, or undertake that may adversely affect any
EFH. If the action would adversely affect EFH, NMFS will provide recommendations to conserve
EFH. In support of these consultations, Appendix D describes non-fishing effects on EFH and
recommended conservation measures.
•
Section 7.6 describes procedures for the review and revision of EFH provisions.
•
Section 7.7 describes how the Council will support habitat-related monitoring and research
activities through the ongoing management program. Such programs will help close the knowledge
gap about many Pacific Coast groundfish species’ habitat needs. In support of appropriate
monitoring and research, the Council’s Research and Data Needs Document (available on the
Council website or on request) identifies many of those data gaps and makes suggestions regarding
future research efforts, including needed research on fishing and non-fishing impacts to groundfish
EFH.
Protecting, conserving, and enhancing EFH are long-term goals of the Council, and these EFH provisions
of the FMP are an important element in the Council’s commitment to a better understanding, and
conservation and management, of Pacific Coast groundfish populations and their habitat needs.
7.2
Description and Identification of Essential Fish Habitat for Groundfish
The Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP manages 90-plus species over a large and ecologically diverse area.
Information on the life histories and habitats of these species varies in completeness, so while some species
are well-studied, there is relatively little information on certain other species. Information about the habitats
and life histories of the species managed by the FMP will certainly change over time, with varying degrees
of information improvement for each species. For these reasons, it is impractical for the Council to include
descriptions identifying EFH for each life stage of the managed species in the body of the FMP. Therefore,
the FMP includes a description of the overall area identified as groundfish EFH and describes the
assessment methodology supporting this designation. Detailed descriptions of EFH, life histories, prey
species, and more are included in Appendix B. Future EFH updates will be reviewed in a Council public
forum.
The overall extent of groundfish EFH for all FMU species is identified as all waters and substrate within
the following areas:
•
•
•
Depths less than or equal to 3,500 m (1,914 fm) to mean higher high water level (MHHW) or the
upriver extent of saltwater intrusion, defined as upstream and landward to where ocean-derived
salts measure less than 0.5 ppt during the period of average annual low flow.
Seamounts in depths greater than 3,500 m as mapped in the EFH assessment geographic
information system (GIS).
Areas designated as HAPCs not already identified by the above criteria.
This EFH identification is precautionary because it is based on the currently known maximum depth
distribution of all life stages of FMU species. This precautionary approach is taken because uncertainty
still exists about the relative value of different habitats to individual groundfish species/life stages, and thus
the actual extent of groundfish EFH. For example, there were insufficient data to derive habitat suitability
probability (HSP) values for all species/life stages. Furthermore, the data used to determine HSP values is
subject to continued refinement. While recognizing these limitations, the 100 percent HSP area, all of
which occurs in depths less than 3,500 m, is identified as a part of groundfish EFH, recognizing that the
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
100
December 2023
best scientific information demonstrates this area is particularly suitable groundfish habitat. While
precautionary, groundfish EFH still constitutes an area considerably smaller than the entire West Coast
EEZ. Figure 7-1 shows the extent of this EFH identification.
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
101
December 2023
Figure 7-1. Groundfish essential fish habitat on the Pacific West Coast.
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
102
December 2023
Use of Habitat Suitability Probability to Identify EFH
The HSP, mentioned above, provides more evaluative detail about EFH for groundfish species. It was
developed by NMFS and their outside contractors through a modeling and assessment process (MRAG
Americas Inc., et al. 2004). This assessment differs slightly from the approach in the guidelines to organize
the information necessary to describe and identify EFH. The guidelines recommend organizing the
information by kind of data, and then suggest describing EFH based on the highest level of data. The HSP
approach is a more sophisticated method to analyze the information and provides a better way to
scientifically analyze the information used to describe and identify EFH. The model considers basic pieces
of information used to describe and identify EFH: location, depth, and substrate. It then determines areas
used by the different life stages of groundfish, provides profiles for individual species by life stage,
combines them in a GIS analysis into an ecosystem level set of fish assemblages, and predicts groundfish
habitat. By using this approach to analyzing the information, HSP provides a better method to analyze the
EFH information and develop the description and identification of EFH than the method outlined in the
guidelines at 50 CFR §600.815. This is because it takes advantage of computer analyses of a large amount
of information that is organized in such a way that it provides a clear understanding of the relationship
between groundfish and habitat. The EFH Model used to develop HSP values for individual groundfish
species/life stage is further described in Appendix B.
The assessment consolidates the best available ecological, environmental, and fisheries information into
various databases, including a geographic information system (GIS) and the habitat use database (HUD).
The following types of data were used in this process to identify groundfish EFH:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Geological substrate (GIS);
Estuaries (GIS);
Canopy kelp (GIS);
Seagrass (GIS);
Structure-forming invertebrate information;
Bathymetric data (GIS);
Latitude (GIS);
Information on pelagic habitat;
Data quality (GIS and other databases); and
Information on the functional relationships between fish and habitat (including a literature review
consolidated in the HUD).
Ideally, EFH would be defined by delineating habitat in terms of its contribution to spawning, breeding,
feeding, growth to maturity, and production; however, comprehensive data on these functions are not
available. Because of these data limitations, a model was developed to predict an overall measure of the
suitability of habitat in particular locations for as many groundfish species as possible. This model uses
available information on the distribution and habitat-related density of species. Where possible, the
suitability of habitat was measured using the occurrence of fish species in NMFS trawl survey catches. For
species not well represented in the trawl catches, information from the scientific literature was used.
The model characterizes habitat in terms of three variables: depth, latitude, and substrate (both physical and
biogenic substrate, where possible). For the purposes of the model, these three characteristics provide a
reasonable representation of the essential features of habitat that influence the occurrence of fish.
Depending on these characteristics and the observed distributions of fish in relation to them, each location
(a parcel or polygon of habitat in the GIS) is assigned a suitability value between zero and 100 percent.
This is the HSP, which was calculated for as many species and life stages in the FMU as possible, based on
available data. These scores and the differences between scores for different locations are then used to
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
103
December 2023
develop a proxy for the areas that can be regarded as “essential.” The higher the HSP, the more likely the
habitat is suitable for the habitat needs of a given groundfish species.
The EFH assessment model provides spatially explicit estimates of HSP for 160 groundfish species/life
stage combinations, including the adults of all FMU species. Distribution ranges for depth and latitude
were derived where possible from in-situ observations of occurrence in NMFS trawl survey catches. Where
survey data were insufficient, depth and latitude ranges were extracted from reports and papers in the
scientific literature. Preferences for substrate types were also taken from the scientific literature. The HSP
values for each habitat polygon are mapped using GIS software. EFH regulations at 50 CFR 600, Subpart
J suggest that inferences may be made about the extent of EFH, through appropriate means, where data are
lacking to determine EFH for each species and life stage. Such is the case for the current EFH identification,
which infers that no groundfish species/life stage will occupy EFH beyond the currently-known maximum
depth for groundfish species, the basis for identifying EFH out to a maximum depth of 3,500 m. This
inference is based on the supposition that the life history characteristics of species for which information is
unavailable are sufficiently similar to the characteristics of those species for which information is available
such that the identified groundfish EFH encompasses all species.
HSP values, assigned to discrete areas represented by the polygons in the GIS, can be used to better
understand where favorable groundfish habitat occurs. The EFH identification described above, all waters
and bottom areas in depths less than 3,500 m, is a precautionary approach encompassing the maximum
range of groundfish species within the management area, based on the best scientific information. As noted
above, this precautionary identification has been adopted because there is not enough information to
determine the relative value of different habitats for all groundfish species/life stages. Therefore, EFH for
all groundfish is identified in a manner that provides the greatest opportunity to apply conservation
measures. Within this precautionary EFH identification it is recognized that HSP values provide additional
information about groundfish EFH. For this reason all areas assigned an HSP value greater than 0 percent
for any given species are included as a subset of this broader, precautionary identification of groundfish
EFH. The model and resulting HSP values also can be used to support future habitat-related management
decisions, which may involve considering tradeoffs between management effects on different habitats. For
example, these tradeoffs could be compared with respect to the suitability (HSP value) of different areas
potentially affected by the management action.
In addition to supporting the description and identification of EFH for the individual species and life stages,
these assessment-related techniques can be used as a basis for an ecosystem approach to management. For
example, the HSP profiles for individual species/life stages can be combined by GIS analyses into
ecosystem-level fish assemblages to investigate and predict environmental consequences of proposed
projects.
As new data become available, they can be incorporated into the assessment to refine and improve HSP
modeling. The Council supports and coordinates this effort through its standing committees and any ad
hoc committees that may be formed for this purpose.
7.3
Habitat Areas of Particular Concern
EFH guidelines published in Federal regulations (50 CFR 600.815(a)(8)) identify HAPCs as types or areas
of habitat within EFH that are identified based on one or more of the following considerations:
•
•
•
•
The importance of the ecological function provided by the habitat;
The extent to which the habitat is sensitive to human-induced environmental degradation;
Whether, and to what extent, development activities are or will be stressing the habitat type; and
The rarity of the habitat type.
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
104
December 2023
Based on these considerations, the Council has designated both areas and habitat types as HAPCs. In some
cases, HAPCs identified by means of specific habitat type may overlap with the designation of a specific
area. The HAPC designation covers the net area identified by habitat type or area. Designating HAPCs
facilitates the consultation process described in Section 7.5 by identifying ecologically important, sensitive,
stressed, or rare habitats that should be given particular attention when considering potential non-fishing
impacts. Their identification is the principal way in which the Council can address these impacts.
HAPCs based on habitat type may vary in location and extent over time. For this reason, the mapped extent
of these areas offers only a first approximation of their location. Defining criteria of habitat-type HAPCs
are described below, which may be applied in specific circumstances to determine whether a given area is
designated as a groundfish HAPC. HAPCs include all waters, substrates, and associated biological
communities falling within the area defined by the criteria below.
Figure 7-2 is a map showing the location of these HAPCs. For HAPCs defined by habitat type, as opposed
to discrete areas, this map offers a first approximation of their location and extent. The precision of the
underlying data used to create these maps, and the fact that the extent of HAPCs defined by key benthic
organisms (canopy kelp, seagrass) can change along with changes in the distribution of these organisms,
means that at fine scales the map may not accurately represent their location and extent. Defining criteria
are provided in the following descriptions of HAPCs, which can be used in conjunction with the map to
determine if a specific location is within one of these HAPCs. The areas of interest HAPCs are defined by
discrete boundaries. .
Designated HAPC
Figure 7-2 shows the location and extent of the HAPC described below.
Estuaries
Estuaries are protected nearshore areas such as bays, sounds, inlets, and river mouths, influenced by ocean
and freshwater. Because of tidal cycles and freshwater runoff, salinity varies within estuaries and results
in great diversity, offering freshwater, brackish and marine habitats within close proximity (Haertel and
Osterberg 1967). Estuaries tend to be shallow, protected, nutrient-rich, and are biologically productive,
providing important habitat for marine organisms, including groundfish.
Defining characteristics: The inland extent of the estuary HAPC is defined as MHHW, or the upriver extent
of saltwater intrusion, defined as upstream and landward to where ocean-derived salts measure less than
0.5 ppt during the period of average annual low flow. The seaward extent is an imaginary line closing the
mouth of a river, bay, or sound; and to the seaward limit of wetland emergents, shrubs, or trees occurring
beyond the lines closing rivers, bays, or sounds. This HAPC also includes those estuary-influenced offshore
areas of continuously diluted seawater. This definition is based on Cowardin, et al. (1979).
Canopy Kelp
Of the habitats associated with the rocky substrate on the continental shelf, kelp forests are of primary
importance to the ecosystem and serve as important groundfish habitat. Kelp forest communities are found
relatively close to shore along the open coast. These subtidal communities provide vertically-structured
habitat throughout the water column: a canopy of tangled blades from the surface to a depth of 10 feet, a
mid-water stipe region, and the holdfast region at the seafloor. Kelp stands provide nurseries, feeding
grounds, and shelter to a variety of groundfish species and their prey (Ebeling, et al. 1980; Feder, et al.
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
105
December 2023
1974). Giant kelp communities are highly productive relative to other habitats, including wetlands, shallow
and deep sand bottoms, and rock-bottom artificial reefs (Bond, et al. 1998). Their net primary production
is an important component to the energy flow within food webs. Foster and Schiel (1985) reported that the
net primary productivity of kelp beds may be the highest of any marine community. The net primary
production of seaweeds in a kelp forest is available to consumers as living tissue on attached plants, as drift
in the form of whole plants or detached pieces, and as dissolved organic matter exuded by attached and
drifting plants (Foster and Schiel 1985).
GIS data for the floating kelp species, Macrocystis spp. and Nereocystis sp., are available from state
agencies in Washington, Oregon, and California. These data have been compiled into a comprehensive
data layer delineating kelp beds along the West Coast. The kelp source data were provided for each state
by Washington Department of Natural Resources, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, and California
Department of Fish and Game. Source data were collected using a variety of remote sensing techniques,
including aerial photos and multispectral imagery. Because kelp abundance and distribution is highly
variable, these data do not necessarily represent current conditions. However, data from multiple years
were compiled together with the assumption that these data would indicate areas where kelp has been known
to occur. Washington State has the most comprehensive database, covering ten years (1989-1992, 19942000) of annual surveys of the Straits of Juan de Fuca and the Pacific Coast. Oregon conducted a coastwide
survey in 1990 and then surveyed select reefs off southern Oregon in 1996-1999. A comprehensive kelp
survey in California was performed in 1989 and additional surveys of most of the coastline occurred in
1999 and 2002.
Defining characteristics: The canopy kelp HAPC includes those waters, substrate, and other biogenic
habitat associated with canopy-forming kelp species (e.g., Macrocystis spp. and Nereocystis sp.).
Seagrass
Seagrass species found on the West Coast of the U.S. include eelgrass species (Zostera spp.), widgeongrass
(Ruppia maritima), and surfgrass (Phyllospadix spp.). These grasses are vascular plants, not seaweeds,
forming dense beds of leafy shoots year-round in the lower intertidal and subtidal areas. Eelgrass is found
on soft-bottom substrates in intertidal and shallow subtidal areas of estuaries and occasionally in other
nearshore areas, such as the Channel Islands and Santa Barbara littoral. Surfgrass is found on hard-bottom
substrates along higher energy coasts. Studies have shown seagrass beds to be among the areas of highest
primary productivity in the world (Herke and Rogers 1993; Hoss and Thayer 1993).
Despite their known ecological importance for many commercial species, seagrass beds have not been as
comprehensively mapped as kelp beds. Wyllie-Echeverria and Ackerman (Wyllie-Echeverria and
Ackerman 2003) published a coastwide assessment of seagrass that identifies sites known to support
seagrass and estimates of seagrass bed areas; however, their report does not compile existing GIS data. GIS
data for seagrass beds were located and compiled as part of the groundfish EFH assessment process.
Eelgrass mapping projects have been undertaken for many estuaries along the West Coast. These mapping
projects are generally done for a particular estuary, and many different mapping methods and mapping
scales have been used. Therefore, the data that have been compiled for eelgrass beds are an incomplete
view of eelgrass distribution along the West Coast. Data depicting surfgrass distribution are very limited—
the only GIS data showing surfgrass are for the San Diego area.
Defining characteristics: The seagrass HAPC includes those waters, substrate, and other biogenic features
associated with eelgrass species (Zostera spp.), widgeongrass (Ruppia maritima), or surfgrass
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
106
December 2023
(Phyllospadix spp.). 1
Rocky Reefs
Rocky habitats are generally categorized as either nearshore or offshore in reference to the proximity of the
habitat to the coastline. Rocky habitat may be composed of bedrock, boulders, or smaller rocks, such as
cobble and gravel. Hard substrates are one of the least abundant benthic habitats, yet they are among the
most important habitats for groundfish.
Defining characteristics: The rocky reefs HAPC includes those waters, substrates and other biogenic
features associated with hard substrate (bedrock, boulders, cobble, gravel, etc.) to MHHW. A first
approximation of its extent is provided by the substrate data in the groundfish EFH assessment GIS.
However, at finer scales, through direct observation, it may be possible to further distinguish between hard
and soft substrate in order to define the extent of this HAPC.
Areas of Interest
Areas of interest are discrete areas that are of special interest due to their unique geological and ecological
characteristics. The following areas of interest are designated HAPCs:
•
•
•
Off of Washington: All waters and sea bottom in state waters from the three nautical mile boundary
of the territorial sea shoreward to MHHW;
Off of Oregon: Daisy Bank/Nelson Island, Thompson Seamount, President Jackson Seamount; and
Off of California: all seamounts, including Gumdrop Seamount, Pioneer Seamount, Guide
Seamount, Taney Seamount, Davidson Seamount, and San Juan Seamount; Mendocino Ridge;
Cordell Bank; Monterey Canyon; specific areas in the Federal waters of the Channel Islands
National Marine Sanctuary; specific areas of the Cowcod Conservation Area.
The Washington State waters HAPC encompasses a variety of habitats important to groundfish, including
other HAPCs such as rocky reef habitat supporting juvenile rockfish (primarily north of Grays Harbor) and
estuary areas supporting numerous economically and ecologically important species, including juvenile
lingcod and English sole. Sandy substrates within state waters (primarily south of Grays Harbor) are
important habitat for juvenile flatfish. A large proportion of this area is also contained within the Olympic
Coast National Marine Sanctuary and three offshore national wildlife refuges, which provide additional
levels of protection to these sensitive nearshore coastal areas.
Seamounts and canyons are prominent features in the coastal underwater landscape, and may be important
in rockfish management because “rockfish distributions closely match the bathymetry of coastal waters”
(Williams and Ralston 2002).
Seamounts rise steeply to heights of over 1,000 m from their base and are typically formed of hard volcanic
substrate. They are unique in that they tend to create complex current patterns (Lavelle, et al. 2003;
Mullineaux and Mills 1997) and have highly localized species distributions (de Forges, et al. 2000).
Seamounts have relatively high biodiversity and up to a third of species occurring on these features may be
endemic (de Forges, et al. 2000). Because the faunal assemblages on these features are still poorly studied,
and species new to science are likely to be found, human activities affecting these features need careful
management. Currents generated by seamounts retain rockfish larvae (Mullineaux and Mills 1997;Dower
1
The extent and effect of non-native species in seagrass HAPC, such as Zostera japonica, may be considered in conservation
recommendations NMFS makes to other Federal and state agencies (see Section 7.5).
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
107
December 2023
and Perry 2001) and zooplankton, a principal food source for rockfish (Genin, et al. 1988; Haury, et al.
2000). Several species observed on seamounts, such as deep sea corals, are particularly vulnerable to
anthropogenic impacts (Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary 2005).
Canyons are complex habitats that may provide a variety of ecological functions. Shelf-edge canyons have
enhanced biomass due to onshore transport and high concentrations of zooplankton, a principal food source
of juvenile and adult rockfish (Brodeur 2001). Canyons may have hard and soft substrate and are high
relief areas that can provide refuge for fish, and localized populations of groundfish may take advantage of
the protection afforded by canyons and the structure-forming invertebrate megafauna that grow there
(Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary 2005). A canyon in the North Pacific was observed to have
dense aggregations of rockfish associated with sea whips (Halipteris willemoesi), while damaged sea whip
“forests” had far fewer rockfish (Brodeur 2001).
Daisy Bank is a highly unique geological feature that occurs in Federal waters due west of Newport, Oregon
and appears to play a unique and potentially rare ecological role for groundfish and large invertebrate
sponge species. The bank was observed in 1990 to support more than 6,000 juvenile rockfish per hectare;
a number thirty times higher than those observed on adjacent banks during the same study period. The
same study also indicated that Daisy Bank seems to support more and larger lingcod and large sponges than
other nearby banks (Mark Hixon, pers. comm., August 2004).
Discrete areas at Cordell Bank and the Channel Island National Marine Sanctuary, and the Cowcod
Conservation Areas, are designated HAPCs because they are afforded high levels of protection through
their inclusion in a National Marine Sanctuary and/or designation as an ecologically important closed area
(see Section 7.4). These designations both reflect and enhance their value as groundfish habitat.
Defining characteristics: As noted above, the shoreward boundary of the Washington State waters HAPC
is defined by MHHW while the seaward boundary is the extent of the three-mile territorial sea. The
remaining area-based HAPCs are defined by their mapped boundaries in the EFH assessment GIS. The
coordinates defining these boundaries may be found in Appendix B to this FMP.
Process for Modifying Existing or Designating New HAPCs
Recognizing that new scientific information could reveal other important habitat areas that should be
designated HAPCs or call into question the criteria for existing HAPCs, or identify new threats that warrant
designating additional HAPCs, the Council may designate a new HAPC or modify or eliminate an existing
HAPC through an interim process.
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
108
December 2023
Figure 7-2. Groundfish habitat areas of particular concern on the Pacific West Coast.
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
109
December 2023
7.4
Management Measures to Minimize Adverse Impacts on Essential Fish Habitat
from Fishing
Chapter 6 describes the range of measures available to the Council for managing groundfish fisheries.
These include measures with permanent effect and those that may be periodically adjusted in concert with
the specification of harvest levels described in Chapter 5. Management measures are typically established
through Federal rulemaking, using one of the procedures described in Section 6.2. Some of the management
measures described in Chapter 6 have been implemented specifically to mitigate adverse impacts to EFH
while others may have another primary purpose (such as bycatch reduction) but may have a corollary
mitigating effect on adverse impacts to EFH. Those measures specifically intended to conserve EFH are
summarized below by reference to the relevant section in Chapter 6.
Three broad categories of management measures are recognized as being effective for mitigating adverse
impacts to EFH: gear modifications, closed areas, and overall reductions of fishing effort (National
Research Council 2002). Section 6.6 defines legal groundfish gear and describes restrictions on their use.
The Council has established several prohibitions and restrictions on gear to mitigate adverse impacts to
EFH. These include restrictions on trawl footrope size and prohibition of the use of dredges and beam
trawls in the management area. Section 6.8 describes time/area closures, including the trawl footprint
closure and ecologically important habitat closures, implemented to mitigate adverse impacts to EFH. The
bottom trawl footprint closure prohibits the use of bottom trawl gear in depths greater than 700 fm to the
outer extent of groundfish EFH (3,500 m) or the seaward extent of the EEZ, preventing the expansion of
the use of this gear type into area where its historical use has been limited. Additional ecologically
important habitat areas are also closed to specified gear types shoreward of the trawl footprint boundary.
These are areas that are thought to be especially ecologically important or vulnerable to the effects of fishing
based on information about substrate type, topography, and the occurrence of biogenic habitat.
Federal regulatory guidance on EFH requires consideration of adverse effects and minimization measures
for non Magnuson Stevens Act fishing activities that use bottom trawl gear, such as the pink shrimp and
ridgeback prawn fisheries, or bottom contact gear, such as pot gear and dinglebar fisheries. Because bottom
trawl and other bottom contact fishing gear has similar adverse habitat effects regardless of the target stock,
all bottom trawl and bottom contact gear closures apply to both MSA and non-MSA fisheries unless
specified. For example, bottom trawling for pink shrimp (a state-managed species) in BT EFHCAs is
prohibited, and pot gear fishing is prohibited in the EFHCAs that are closed to bottom contact gear. (The
prohibition on non-MSA bottom trawling does not apply to RCAs, which are designed for species
conservation rather than habitat protection).
Section 6.9 describes the range of measures available to control fishing capacity. Reductions in fishing
capacity, which may be loosely defined as the number, size, and configuration of vessels participating in a
fishery, may reduce overall fishing effort. Reducing fishing effort is relevant to mitigating the effects of
fishing on EFH if the aerial or temporal extent of gear contact with EFH is reduced. Although the rationale
for measures that result in capacity reduction may be to prevent overfishing, reduce bycatch, or increase
economic efficiency, they may have a corollary mitigating effect for EFH impacts. The Council will
consider any such mitigating effects when developing capacity reduction programs or measures.
In determining whether it is practicable to minimize an adverse effect from fishing, the Council will
consider whether, and to what extent, the fishing activity is adversely affecting EFH, the nature and extent
of the adverse effect on EFH, and whether management measures are practicable. The Council will consider
the long-term and short-term costs and benefits to the fishery and to EFH, along with any other factors
consistent with National Standard 7.
As described in Section 6.2.5, Indian treaty rights apply in U & A grounds of the Makah, Hoh, and Quileute
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
110
December 2023
Tribes, and the Quinault Indian Nation. In recognition of the sovereign status and co-manager role of these
Indian tribes over shared Federal and tribal fishery resources, the regulations at 50 CFR 660.324(d) establish
procedures that will be followed for the development of regulations regarding tribal fisheries within the U
& A grounds. They state that the agency will develop regulations in consultation with the affected tribe(s)
and insofar as possible, with tribal consensus. Application of management measures intended to mitigate
the adverse impacts of fishing on EFH within U & A grounds will be subject to these procedures.
7.5
EFH Coordination, Consultation, and Recommendations
The Magnuson-Stevens Act (§305(b)) also provides a mechanism for NMFS and the Council to address
non-fishing impacts to EFH. Federal agencies are required to consult with NMFS on all activities, and
proposed activities, authorized, funded, or undertaken by the agency that may adversely affect EFH,
whether it occurs within or outside EFH. (For example, certain terrestrial activities may adversely affect
EFH.) NMFS must provide recommendations to conserve EFH to Federal agencies undertaking such
activities. Federal agencies must respond within 30 days of receiving conservation recommendations from
NMFS, describing measures to avoid, mitigate, or offset the impact of the proposed action on EFH. If the
response is inconsistent with NMFS’ conservation recommendations, the agency will explain why it did
not follow them.
NMFS must also provide recommendations to conserve EFH to state agencies if it receives information on
their actions. However, they are not required to initiate consultation with NMFS, nor are they required to
respond to any recommendations provided by NMFS.
The Council may provide recommendations on actions that may affect habitat, including EFH. Such
recommendations may include measures to avoid, minimize, mitigate, or otherwise offset adverse effects
on EFH resulting from actions or proposed actions authorized, funded, or undertaken by that agency. The
Council will encourage Federal agencies conducting or authorizing work that may adversely affect
groundfish EFH to minimize disturbance to EFH. The Council must provide recommendations if the action
is likely to substantially affect salmon habitat or EFH.
Whenever possible, EFH consultations will be combined with other interagency consultations and
environmental review procedures, which may be required under the ESA, Clean Water Act, NEPA, Fish
and Wildlife Coordination Act, Federal Power Act, Rivers and Harbors Act, or other statutes. EFH
consultation may be either programmatic (concerning agency programs or policies) or project-specific.
Programmatic consultations involve broad Federal actions as defined under NEPA (40 CFR 1502.4(b)),
such as the adoption of new programs or policies. Programmatic actions may encompass several projectspecific actions sharing common geographic scope, project elements, or timing. When appropriate, NMFS
will use programmatic consultations to consider related projects, thereby eliminating repetitive discussions
and helping to focus on the appropriate level of analysis. Considering the broad geographic scope of
groundfish EFH, this approach can help address a wide variety of related development activities while also
considering their cumulative effects.
7.6
Review and Revision of Essential Fish Habitat Provisions
The Council will review the EFH description and identification, HAPC designations, information on fishing
impacts and non-fishing impacts, and other EFH provisions included in this FMP at least every five years.
The Council may choose to review specific elements of EFH on an interim basis, such as HAPCs,
particularly if inaction could result in significant harm, and should conduct a complete review of all EFH
information at least every five years. New information may be included in the annual SAFE document or
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
111
December 2023
similar document and, if necessary, the FMP may be amended. The Council may schedule more frequent
reviews in response to recommendation by the Secretary or for other reasons.
The purpose of periodic reviews is to ensure that all EFH provisions are based on the best scientific
information available, the current nature of the fishery, as well as other new information. During periodic
reviews, the Council and NMFS will consider whether new information may warrant changes to
minimization measures, EFH description and identification, socio-economic considerations, or any other
elements of EFH. Amendment 19 to the Groundfish FMP utilized state-of-the art analyses to determine
overall extent of EFH, practicable minimization measures (i.e., specific areas closed to certain fishing
activities and gear), and other EFH provisions. Under Amendment 28 the Council modified the
configuration of areas open and closed to groundfish bottom trawling, based on new information, and to
minimize to the extent practicable, adverse impacts to EFH. Details of the analysis can be found in the
Amendment 28 EIS.
7.7
Habitat-related Research and Monitoring
The five-year review cycle described above accommodates progress in scientific understanding of marine
habitat. New data on the habitat needs of groundfish species will improve the assessment model described
in Section 7.2.1. Better information about the location, function, and consequences of human activity on
habitat underpins efforts to conserve EFH and could enable more precise quantification of adverse impacts
to EFH resulting from human activities, including fishing. The Council supports the use of existing research
and monitoring programs to increase scientific understanding about EFH. Where practicable, these
programs may be supplemented or modified to gather habitat-related information. Habitat-related research
recommendations can be found in the Council’s Research and Data Needs document.
Establishing research sites, unaffected by fishing, could be used in comparative studies to better understand
the effects of fishing on habitat. Area closures established to manage bycatch, promote stock rebuilding,
protect habitat, and for other reasons, offer opportunities to measure the length of time needed for habitat
features and function to recover. Over time, these sites could also be compared with sites where fishing is
ongoing in order to research the effects of fishing. The Council will support, through the work of its
advisory bodies such as the Habitat Committee, efforts to identify discrete sites within closed areas in order
to focus on research efforts. By encouraging research at identified sites, results can be more easily
compared. Such a system or research sites should include a representative sample of habitat types in order
to allow comparison of the effects of fishing across these different types.
[Amended: 11, 19 (all Chapter 7)]
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
112
December 2023
CHAPTER 8
EXPERIMENTAL FISHERIES
Experimental fisheries may be useful to the Council in allowing members of the public to work with
government agencies to bring new fishery management ideas into the Council process. For example, there
may be some modification to current gear types that will reduce the effects of that gear on habitat, or reduces
bycatch rates with that gear in otherwise closed areas. The Council supports the use of EFPs to promote
public and agency innovation in furthering the FMP’s fishery management goal and objectives.
Experimental fishing will be conducted under Federal EFPs issued under Section 303(b)(1) of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act.
The Regional Administrator may authorize, for limited experimental purposes, the direct or incidental
harvest of groundfish managed under this FMP that would otherwise be prohibited. No experimental
fishing may be conducted unless authorized by an EFP issued by the Regional Administrator to the
participating vessel in accordance with the criteria and procedures specified in this section. EFPs will be
issued without charge. EFPs may be issued to Federal or state agencies, marine fish commissions, or other
entities, including individuals. An applicant for an EFP need not be the owner or operator of the vessel(s)
for which the EFP is requested. Nothing in this section is intended to inhibit the authority of the Council
or any other fishery management entity from requesting that the Regional Administrator consider issuance
of EFPs for a particular experiment in advance of the Regional Administrator’s receipt of applications for
EFPs to participate in that experiment.
EFPs that would result in the directed or incidental take of groundfish should be reviewed through the
Council process prior to application to NMFS. The Council review process allows the Council to determine
whether portions of the harvest specifications of any groundfish species or species group would need to be
set aside for harvest expected to be taken under EFPs. EFP proposals must contain a mechanism, such as
at-sea fishery monitoring, to ensure that the harvest limits for targeted and incidental species are not
exceeded and are accurately accounted for. Also, EFP proposals must include a description of the proposed
data collection and analysis methodology used to measure whether the EFP objectives will be met.
EFP applicants may have their proposals reviewed through the Council process in accordance with Council
Operating Procedure #19, Protocol for Consideration of EFPs for Groundfish Fisheries, which applies
to EFP proposals targeting management unit species (Table 3-1) or Groundfish EC species (Table 3-2).
EFP proposals targeting EC species shared between all four FMPs, including the Groundfish FMP, will be
subject to the protocol for Shared EC Species, Council Operating Procedure #24. These protocols include
requirements for EFP submission, proposal contents, review and approval, and progress reporting. The
Council will give priority consideration to those EFP applications that:
1. Emphasize resource conservation and management with a focus on bycatch reduction (highest
priority);
2. Encourage full retention of fishery mortalities;
3. Involve data collection on fisheries stocks and/or habitat;
4. Encourage innovative gear modifications and fishing strategies to reduce bycatch;
5. Encourage the development of new market opportunities; and
6. Explore the use of higher trip limits or other incentives to increase utilization of underutilized
species while reducing bycatch of non-target species.
Criteria and procedures for the issuance of EFPs apply nationwide and are found in Federal regulations at
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
113
December 2023
50 CFR §600.745:
1.
Applicants must submit a completed application in writing to the Regional Administrator at least
60 days prior to the proposed effective date of the permit. The application must include, but is not
limited to, the following information:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
The date of the application;
The applicant's name, mailing address, and telephone number;
A statement of the purposes and goals of the exempted fishery for which an EFP is needed,
including justification for issuance of the EFP;
For each vessel to be covered by the EFP:
(1) A copy of the USCG documentation, state license, or registration of each vessel,
or the information contained on the appropriate document; and
(2) The current name, address, and telephone number of owner and master;
The species (target and incidental) expected to be harvested under the EFP, the amount(s)
of such harvest necessary to conduct the exempted fishing, the arrangements for disposition
of all regulations species harvested under the EFP, and any anticipated impacts on marine
mammals and endangered species;
For each vessel covered by the EFP, the approximate time(s) and place(s) fishing will take
place, and the type, size and amount of gear to be used; and
The signature of the applicant.
The Regional Administrator may request from an applicant additional information necessary to make the
determinations required under this section.
2.
The Regional Administrator will review each application and will make a preliminary
determination whether or not the application contains all of the required information and constitutes
an activity appropriate for further consideration. If the Regional Administrator finds any
application does not warrant further consideration, both the applicant and the Council will be
notified in writing of the reasons for the decision. If the Regional Administrator determines that
any application warrants further consideration, notification receipt of the application will be
published in the Federal Register with a brief description of the proposal, and the intent of NMFS
to issue an EFP. Interested persons will be given a 15-day to 45-day opportunity to comment and/or
comments will be requested during public testimony at a Council meeting. The notification may
establish a cutoff date for receipt of additional applications to participate in the same or a similar
exempted fishing activity.
The Regional Administrator also will forward copies of the application to the Council, the United
States Coast Guard, and the fishery management agencies of Oregon, Washington, California, and
Idaho, accompanied by the following information:
a.
b.
c.
3.
The effect of the proposed EFP on the target and incidental species, including the effect on
any ACL/OY;
A citation of the regulation or regulations that, without the EFP, would prohibit the
proposed activity; and
Biological information relevant to the proposal, including appropriate statements of
environmental impacts, including impacts on marine mammals and threatened or
endangered species.
At a Council meeting following receipt of a complete application, the Regional Administrator may
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
114
December 2023
choose to consult with the Council and the directors of the state fishery management agencies
concerning the permit application. The Council shall notify the applicant in advance of the meeting,
if any, at which the application will be considered and invite the applicant to appear in support of
the application if the applicant desires.
4.
As soon as practicable after receiving responses from the agencies identified above, or after
consultation, if any, in paragraph 3 above, the Regional Administrator shall notify the applicant in
writing of his decision to grant or deny the EFP, and, if denied, the reasons for the denial. Grounds
for denial of an EFP include, but are not limited to, the following:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
The applicant has failed to disclose material information required, or has made false
statements as to any material fact, in connection with his or her application;
According to the best scientific information available, the harvest to be conducted under
the permit would detrimentally affect the well-being of the stock of any regulated species
of fish, marine mammal, or threatened or endangered species in a significant way;
Issuance of the EFP would have economic allocation as its sole purpose;
Activities to be conducted under the EFP would be inconsistent with the intent of national
goals for Magnuson-Stevens Act implementation or the management objectives of this
FMP;
The applicant has failed to demonstrate a valid justification for the permit; or
The activity proposed under the EFP could create a significant enforcement problem.
5.
The decision of a Regional Administrator to grant or deny an EFP is the final action of NMFS. If
the permit, as granted, is significantly different from the original application, or is denied, NMFS
may publish notification in the Federal Register describing the exempted fishing to be conducted
under the EFP or the reasons for denial.
6.
The Regional Administrator may attach terms and conditions to the EFP consistent with the purpose
of the exempted fishing, including, but not limited to:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
7.
The maximum amount of each regulated species that can be harvested and landed during
the term of the EFP, including trip limitations, where appropriate;
The number, size(s), name(s), and identification number(s) of the vessel(s) authorized to
conduct fishing activities under the EFP;
The time(s) and place(s) where exempted fishing may be conducted;
The type, size, and amount of gear that may be used by each vessel operated under the
EFP;
The condition that observers, a vessel monitoring system, or other electronic equipment be
carried on board vessels operated under an EFP, and any necessary conditions, such as
predeployment notification requirements;
Reasonable data reporting requirements;
Other conditions as may be necessary to assure compliance with the purposes of the EFP
consistent with the objectives of this FMP and other applicable law; and
Provisions for public release of data obtained under the EFP that are consistent with NOAA
confidentiality of statistics procedures. An applicant may be required to waive the right to
confidentiality of information gathered while conducting exempted fishing as a condition
of an EFP.
Failure of a permittee to comply with the terms and conditions of an EFP shall be grounds for
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
115
December 2023
revocation, suspension, or modification of the EFP with respect to all vessels conducting activities
under that EFP. Any action taken to revoke, suspend, or modify an EFP shall be governed by
Federal regulations.
[Amendment 18, 25]
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
116
December 2023
CHAPTER 9
SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH
Nothing in this FMP is intended to inhibit or prevent any scientific research involving groundfish which is
acknowledged by the Secretary or his delegee, and is to be conducted in the fishery management area by a
scientific research vessel or a commercial vessel contracted to carry out scientific research.
Activity should not be acknowledged as scientific research unless it is submitted in writing to the Secretary
of Commerce or his delegee in the form of a research proposal which addresses all of the factors below.
An activity may be acknowledged as scientific research if its primary objective, purpose, or product is the
acquisition of data, information, or knowledge as determined by consideration of all of the following
factors:
1. Clearly researchable subject matter exists which will result in information useful for scientific or
management purposes;
2. The application of existing knowledge alone is insufficient to solve the scientific or management
subject presented by the scientific research proposal;
3. Facts/data/samples will be collected or observed and analyzed in a scientifically acceptable manner
and the results will be formally prepared and available to the public; and
4. Recognized scientific experts, organizations, or institutions with expertise in the field or subject
matter area are sponsoring or are otherwise affiliated with the activity.
Secretarial Acknowledgment of Scientific Research:
1. If the Secretary of Commerce or his delegee agrees that an activity constitutes scientific research
involving groundfish, a letter of acknowledgment should be issued to the operator or master of the
vessel conducting the scientific research.
2. The letter will include information on the purpose, scope, location, and schedule of the
acknowledged activities.
3. Any activities not in accordance with the letter of acknowledgment should be subject to all
provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and its implementing regulations.
4. The Secretary or his delegee should transmit copies of letters of acknowledgment to the Council
and to state and Federal administrative and enforcement agencies to ensure they are aware of the
research activities.
Groundfish taken under the scientific research exclusion may be sold to offset all or part of the cost of
carrying out the research plan including costs associated with operating the research vessel.
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
117
December 2023
CHAPTER 10 PROCEDURE FOR REVIEWING
STATE REGULATIONS
10.1
Background
There are and will continue to be state regulations affecting groundfish fisheries off the west coast, which
are in addition to Federal regulations. This potential extends to waters off all three west coast states, to all
gear types, and to both the commercial and recreational fisheries. In some cases, it may be desirable to
ensure consistency between state and Federal regulations by implementing Federal regulations that
complement state regulations. In other cases, the Council may determine that Federal regulations are not
necessary to complement state regulations, but wish to assure a state that its regulations are consistent with
the FMP insofar as they are applied to vessels registered in that state when fishing in the EEZ. Section 10.2
describes the framework review process by which any state may petition the Council to initiate a review of
its regulations, determine consistency with the FMP and national standards to ensure that the state
regulations are enforceable. If appropriate, the Council may also recommend to NMFS that duplicate or
different Federal regulations be implemented in the EEZ. While the Council retains the authority to
recommend Federal regulations be implemented in the EEZ, the preference is to continue to rely on state
regulations in that area as long as they are consistent with the FMP.
10.2
Review Procedure
Any state may propose that the Council review a particular state regulation for the purpose of determining
its consistency with the FMP and the need for complementary Federal regulations. Although this procedure
is directed at the review of new regulations, review of existing regulations affecting the harvest of
groundfish managed by the FMP also will utilize this process. The state making the proposal will include
a summary of the regulations in question and concise arguments in support of consistency.
Upon receipt of a state's proposal, the Council may make an initial determination whether or not to proceed
with the review. If the Council determines that the proposal has insufficient merit or little likelihood of
being found consistent, it may terminate the process immediately and inform the petitioning state in writing
of the reasons for its rejection.
If the Council determines sufficient merit exists to proceed with a determination, it will review the state's
documentation or prepare an analysis considering, if relevant, the following factors:
1. How the proposal furthers or is not otherwise inconsistent with the objectives of the FMP, the
Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law;
2. The likely effect on or interaction with any other regulations in force for the fisheries in the area
concerned;
3. The expected impacts on the species or species group taken in the fishery sector being affected by
the regulation;
4. The economic impacts of the regulation, including changes in catch, effort, revenue, fishing costs,
participation, and income to different sectors being regulated as well as to sectors which might be
indirectly affected; and
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
119
December 2023
5. Any impacts in terms of achievement of quotas or harvest guidelines, maintaining year-round
fisheries, maintaining stability in fisheries, prices to consumers, improved product quality, discards,
joint venture operations, gear conflicts, enforcement, data collection, or other factors.
The Council will inform the public of the proposal and supporting analysis and invite public comments
before and at the next scheduled Council meeting. At its next scheduled meeting, the Council will consider
public testimony, public comment, advisory reports, and any further state comments or reports, and
determine whether or not the proposal is consistent with the FMP and whether or not to recommend
implementation of complementary Federal regulations or to endorse state regulations as consistent with the
FMP without additional Federal regulations.
If the Council recommends the implementation of complementary Federal regulations, it will forward its
recommendation to the NMFS Regional Director for review and approval.
The NMFS Regional Director will publish the proposed regulation in the Federal Register for public
comment, after which, if approved, he will publish final regulations as soon as practicable. If the Regional
Director disapproves the proposed regulations, he will inform the Council in writing of the reasons for his
disapproval.
[Amendment 18]
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
120
December 2023
CHAPTER 11
GROUNDFISH LIMITED ENTRY
All references to fishing activities in these proposals are references to catching activities occurring off the
Washington, Oregon, and California coasts unless otherwise noted.
11.1
Introduction
Problem to be Addressed by this Groundfish Limited Entry System
The Council adopted the following problem statement in April 1990:
Nearly all groundfish stocks are now fully harvested by domestic fishermen in the Pacific Coast groundfish
fishery. While fleet harvesting capacity has increased, harvests are declining as stocks are fished down to
MSY levels. Further, there is a general level of excess harvest capacity existing in most West Coast and
North Pacific fishing fleets (e.g., shrimp, crab, halibut, salmon, etc.). As these other fisheries grow
increasingly overcrowded relative to available harvest, it becomes more likely that capacity will be
redirected to the west coast groundfish fishery when downturns occur elsewhere. In addition, the
implementation of more restrictive management regulations in other fisheries, including individual trawl
quota (ITQ) LE systems, may result in increased effort during season openings in the west coast groundfish
fishery.
In the Pacific Coast groundfish fishery, declining stocks and the presence of harvest capacity in excess of
that necessary to catch the resource result in increasing number and complexity of regulations.
Accordingly, the Council faces increased pressure to balance the conflicting need to adopt more restrictive
regulations for protecting the resource with the need to provide sufficient allowable catch to sustain the
fleet.
Increased number and complexity of regulations have many adverse impacts in such areas as fleet costs,
resource utilization, safety, and enforcement costs and effectiveness. Additionally, there is a point beyond
which added regulations which interfere with day-to-day vessel operations (e.g., trip limits or mesh size
regulations) will not improve the Council's ability to accomplish its goals. Pressures on industry arise not
only from management measures which restrict operations, but also the division of the allowable catch
among larger numbers of vessels.
Two components comprise fleet harvest capacity: vessel fishing power and number of vessels. As
harvesting capacity in the fisheries continues to increase, problems arising from the need for more
restrictive management measures and resolution of allocation issues become more acute. It is apparent that
no relief from these problems will occur if management actions continue to allow increased harvest
capacity.
Goals and Objectives for Groundfish Limited Entry
The following are the goals and objectives for LE adopted by the Council in April 1990. The primary
objective directly addresses the overcapacity problem, and the secondary objectives address the ways the
Council hopes LE will promote achievement of the Council's goals and objectives for the groundfish
fishery.
Goals. The goals for the west coast groundfish fishery LE program are to improve stability and economic
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
121
December 2023
viability of the industry while recognizing historic participation, meet groundfish management objectives,
and provide for enforceable laws.
Primary Objective. The primary objective of the LE program will be to limit or reduce harvest capacity in
the west coast groundfish fishery.
Secondary Objectives. In pursuit of the primary objective, the following secondary objectives will be
addressed:
Economic
Promote long-term economic stability.
Increase net returns from the fishery.
Allow flexibility for combination vessels.
•
•
•
Management
Stabilize management regimes by reducing need for frequent inseason changes.
Reduce the cost of management.
Reduce bycatch and waste.
Encourage effort in underutilized species fisheries.
•
•
•
•
Enforcement
Promote cost-effective enforcement by reducing need for frequent changes and tight trip limits.
Promote logistically viable enforcement by minimizing need to use regulations such as trip
limits or subarea closures which are more difficult to enforce.
•
•
Social
•
•
•
•
Recognize and accommodate historical participation of those investing their life and resources
in the fishery.
Maintain a mechanism for fishery entrance/exit and flexibility for change in the fleet.
Reduce conflicts between user groups by limiting or reducing effort competition for the same
resource.
Provide a stable supply of groundfish to the public at a reasonable price.
Achievement of Goals and Objectives and Need for Additional Measures to
Reduce Capacity
The license limitation system adopted under this amendment to the groundfish FMP will not in itself
immediately accomplish in a readily apparent manner the goals and objectives the Council has set out for
LE. It is a first step that may slow or prevent the worsening of conditions which impede the Council from
achieving the overall goals and objectives for the fishery. The Council believes it is reasonable to expect
that the primary objective will be accomplished through this license limitation system; i.e., there will be an
effective limit which reduces growth in the active fleet and results in less capacity in the fishery under the
adopted license limitation program than would have been present in its absence. However, movement
toward the goals and objectives as compared to the existing fishery will become apparent only when a way
is found to substantially reduce the capacity already present.
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
122
December 2023
Establishment of this license limitation system will provide a starting point for any future programs which
may be necessary to further reduce harvest capacity. To further reduce harvest capacity, a voluntary buyback program should be implemented and the appropriate enabling legislation for funding sought.
Incremental implementation of a groundfish ITQ program may also be considered as a means of further
reducing harvest capacity.
Nature of the Interest Created
Groundfish LE permits and endorsements confer a right to participate in the west coast groundfish fishery
with LE gear in accordance with the LE system established under the groundfish FMP as modified by this
chapter of the FMP (created under Amendment 6) or any future amendment which may modify or even
abolish the LE system. The permits and endorsements are also subject to sanctions, including revocation,
as provided by the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act, 16 USC at 1858(g) and 15 CFR
Part 904, Subpart D. 1
Fisheries Within the Scope of the Limited Entry Program
The provisions of this chapter apply only to the commercial groundfish fisheries. Regulations and
allocations for the treaty Indian and recreational fisheries are not affected by the provisions of this chapter
unless specifically mentioned. All harvest guidelines, quotas and catches referenced are those specific to
the non-treaty commercial fisheries.
11.2
Management, Allocation and General Rules on the Issuance and Use of
Groundfish LE Permits, Gear Endorsements, Size Endorsements, and Fixed
Gear Sablefish Endorsements
Federal LE Permits Required Only for Gears Fishing on the Limited Access
Quota
1. Federal groundfish LE permits will be required and issued only for those vessels catching Councilmanaged groundfish species 2 with groundfish LE gears (trawl, longline or fishpot gear) under the
limited access fishery regulations. 3
2. Vessels using exempted gears (all gears other than trawl, longline and fishpot) or using longline or
fishpot gear 4 without a permit endorsed for one of those gears may continue to catch groundfish
under an open access system unless otherwise permitted. However, catch by vessels with trawlendorsed LE permits that use such gears may instead be managed with IFQs, as specified in the
regulations for the IFQ program (see Appendix E). (Exempted, longline and fishpot gears used by
vessels without endorsements for those gears are termed open access gears.)
1
2
3
4
It is intended that a statement of the nature of the interest created be included on the groundfish LE permit.
All references to "Council-managed groundfish" refer only to groundfish species specified in the Council groundfish FMP
which are caught in the exclusive economic zone or adjacent state waters off Washington, Oregon and California.
References to longline, pot, and trawl gear are references to legal groundfish gears as defined by the groundfish FMP.
Trawl gear may not be used without a permit because the open access fishery for limited entry gears is aimed at accommodating
small producers and will likely be managed under restrictive trip limits. The fishing power of trawl gear would result in
excessive discards under these trip limits. Additionally, while longline and fishpot vessels catching small quantities of
groundfish will be prevented from qualifying by the structure of the minimum landing requirements (MLRs) (a day’s landings
must be greater than 500 pounds in order for the day to count toward meeting the MLR; Section 11.3.1.3), this structure will
provide little barrier for most trawl vessels. Thus, there is no strong reason to provide the open access opportunity to
compensate for the 500 pound per landing day threshold.
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
123
December 2023
Allocations Between the Limited Entry and Open Access Fisheries and
Management of the Open Access Fishery
1. The division of the fleet into LE and open access participants will require that separate allocations
be established for each group where management measures are required to prevent harvest in excess
of annual catch limits. For those species, species groups and areas covered by the trawl/non-trawl
allocations provided in Table 6-1 and for which the Council determines an allocation is necessary,
ad hoc allocations to the directed open access sector will be established as needed through the
biennial specifications process.
2. For those species for which trawl/non-trawl allocations are not established in Table 6-1, allocations
for the open access fishery will be based on historical catch levels for the period July 11, 1984 to
August 1, 1988 by exempted, longline, and fishpot gears used by vessels which did not receive an
endorsement for the gear where management measures are required to prevent harvest in excess of
ACLs.
5
a.
On the basis of landings over this period, a percentage of catch 5 for these gears will be
determined and applied to harvest guidelines and quotas in order to establish the allocation
for the open access portion of the fishery. The open access portion of harvest guideline or
quota will be set aside before other allocations are made.
b.
LE/open access allocation percentages for specific species and species groups will be
determined after this LE program is implemented, and permitted and non-permitted vessels
are identified.
c.
An open access allocation based on catch history will be determined for each separate
species, species group, and area for which the Council determines an allocation is
necessary.
d.
Initial determination and any subsequent revision of the species or species groups and areas
for which an open access allocation will be made will occur through a rulemaking under
the appropriate framework in Chapter 6 of this plan.
e.
Open access allocations for species, species groups and areas identified for such allocation
by the Council will be specified during the biennial process for setting specifications
described in Section 5.4 of this plan.
f.
A change in the catch history allocation method for determining the allocation for the open
access fishery will require a plan amendment.
g.
If a group of vessels that initially is to participate in the open access fishery later receives
permits in the limited access fishery, the historical catch levels of those vessels shall be
deducted from the historical catch levels used to calculate the open access allocation, and
the percentages used in setting the open access allocation recalculated. For example, if a
vessel whose gear is prohibited by a state or the Secretary of Commerce qualifies for a LE
permit under Section 11.3.1.3(9), or if a small LE fleet is incorporated under Section
11.3.1.4(9) and its vessels are issued LE permits, their catch history with the banned gear
or the LE gear for which they are now going to receive permits shall be deducted from the
open access fishery's historical catch levels, and open access percentages will be
recalculated.
h.
Prior to expiration of “B” endorsements, vessels' catch history using gears for which they
receive “B” endorsements is not included in the catch history used to calculate the
Percentage of catch as determined through the Pacific Coast Fisheries Information Network database or some comparable
database.
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
124
December 2023
percentage of catch for open access vessels. When “B” endorsements expire, the historic
catch levels of vessels which received “B” endorsements for longline or fishpot gear when
using that gear will then count toward determining the proportion allocated to the open
access quota. The historic catch levels of vessels which received “B” endorsements for
trawl gear will continue to count toward determining the limited access quota and will not
be transferred to the catch history used to determine the open access quota, even after trawl
“B” endorsements expire.
3. For International North Pacific Fisheries Commission areas where quotas or harvest guidelines for
a stock are not fully utilized, no limited/open access allocation will be established until it is
anticipated the allowable catch for a species or group of species will be reached.
4. Any groundfish catch by a vessel registered to an LE permit will be counted against the allocation
for the limited entry gear(s) that the permit is endorsed for when the fishery for the limited entry
gear is allowed, except when the vessel is fishing in a fishery for which the catch has already been
accounted for in the preseason set-asides deducted from the ACLs. A vessel may not carry or
deploy limited entry gear for which its permit is endorsed when the limited entry fishery for that
gear is closed or otherwise prohibited. Once the limited entry fishery for the gear for which the
permit is endorsed has closed, any groundfish landings by the vessel with open access gear will
count toward the allocation covering the open access fishery. The catch of vessels fishing without
LE permits will count toward the allocation covering the open access fishery regardless of what
open access gear is used, except when the vessel is participating in a fishery for which the catch
has already been accounted for in the preseason set-asides deducted from the ACLs.
5. Allocations among gear types for species other than sablefish north of 36⁰ N latitude may be
established in the future. If this occurs, portions of the new allocations may, in turn, be allocated
to the open access fishery under the principles set forth in this section.
6. Management of the open access fishery.
a.
The open access portion of the fishery will be managed to provide year-round fishing
opportunity.
b.
The purpose of providing an open access alternative for vessels using longline or fishpot
gear is to allow a group of vessels which has historically fished at low levels, with minimal
impacts on the resource (fewer than 5 or 6 landings greater than 500 pounds per vessel
during the qualifying window period, July 1, 1984 through August 1, 1988), to remain in
the fishery without creating permits which may be used at higher effort levels.
c.
The open access fishery will be managed with the intent of maintaining the historic fishing
opportunities for the participant groups and to keep the overall catch in line with historic
harvests. For example, trip limits for non-permitted longline and fishpot gears operating
in the open access fishery will likely be fairly low because the historic fishing levels of this
group are low. Trip limits, when necessary, for some exempted gears will probably be
higher because their historic fishing levels are higher.
Initial Issuance of Limited Entry Permits
1. Each qualifying vessel will entitle only the current owner 6 to one LE permit.
2. A vessel qualifies for an LE permit by meeting the initial issuance criteria for one or more gear
endorsements (see Sections 11.2.5 and 11.3).
6
An exception to this would occur in the case of a lost vessel (Section 11.2.10.1 paragraph 2), or if a contract transferring vessel
ownership specified that the seller would retain the rights to the LE permit. In this case, a past owner (the seller) may ultimately
receive the LE permit.
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
125
December 2023
3. A given vessel will not result in the issuance of more than one LE permit.
Ownership Restriction and Changes in Ownership
1. Only entities (human beings, corporations, etc.) qualified to own a U.S. fishing vessel may be
issued or may hold (by ownership or otherwise) an LE permit. (Foreign ownership of LE permits
should be limited to the maximum degree possible given what is allowed under the law.)
2. Ownership of a permit will be considered to change when there is an ownership change on U.S.
Coast Guard documents; however, an owner can submit documents to demonstrate that the
controlling interest has not changed and therefore the change in documentation is not a change in
ownership.
3. An entity qualified to hold an LE permit may hold more than one LE permit. If the Council
authorizes an LE permit stacking program, in which a vessel could use multiple permits
simultaneously, each LE fishery participant would be required to hold at least one LE “base”
permit. An LE base permit is the initial permit necessary to participate in the LE fishery, and
subject to all of the requirements described herein for LE permit ownership qualifications, and gear
and length endorsements. Requirements and additional privileges for permits “stacked” on to base
permits may be authorized by Federal rulemaking.
4. For the purpose of provisions specifically identified by the Council, NMFS may promulgate
regulations which define a change in ownership of a permit as a change in the identity or ownership
interest of a corporation or partnership owning a permit.
Gear Endorsements
1. An LE permit confers no rights without a valid gear endorsement attached.
2. As of Amendment 13 to the FMP, there is only one functioning type of endorsement, the “A”
endorsement. With Amendment 13, the provisional “A” endorsement, the “B” endorsement, and
the designated species “B” endorsements were removed as expired or defunct.
3. Gear endorsements will be affixed to the LE permit and specify the type of LE gear which may be
used to catch Council-managed groundfish.
4. A gear endorsement for a particular gear authorizes the catch of all Council-managed groundfish
species with that gear, except in the case of fishing for which a fixed gear sablefish endorsement is
required (see Section 11.2.6.1). LE vessels using longline and fishpot gear to catch sablefish
against the LE quota north of 36⁰ N latitude are required to hold fixed gear sablefish endorsements
during periods specified in the regulations, in addition to the required gear endorsement.
5. More than one gear endorsement may be affixed to a single LE permit.
6. Gear endorsements are required for LE-permitted vessels to use LE gear types (see Section 11.2.1,
paragraph 1) to catch groundfish under the regulations governing the LE fishery.
a. Longline and Fishpot Usage for Vessels with a Permit Endorsed for the Gear. If a vessel has
longline or fishpot gear on board, and the vessel is registered to an LE permit that is endorsed
for the longline or fishpot gear on board, regulations for the limited access fishery will apply
to the vessel. If the vessel also has a trawl endorsement and has opted to participate for a period
in the trawl rationalization program using the fixed gear (longline or fishpot) for which it holds
an endorsement, then the trawl rationalization portion of the LE fishery regulations will apply
to the vessel for that period.
b. Exception for Longline and Fishpot Gear Usage for Vessels With a LE Permit not Endorsed
for the Gear Being Used:
i. As specified in Section 11.2.1, paragraph 2, LE vessels may use longline and pot gear
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
126
December 2023
7.
8.
9.
10.
without an endorsement, in which case the use of the gear is governed by the open access
fishery regulations unless the vessel’s LE permit is endorsed for trawl gear.
ii. As specified in Section 11.2.2, if a vessel registered to a LE permit is fishing with longline
or fishpot gear, but without an endorsement for that gear, the catch still counts against the
LE fishery allocation.
iii. As specified in the trawl rationalization program (Section 6.9.3.1 and Appendix E) vessels
registered to a trawl-endorsed LE permit and using longline or fishpot gear without a LE
endorsement for those gears must cover their landings with trawl IFQ and comply with the
provisions of the trawl IFQ program. Open access sector cumulative landing limits (also
known as trip limits) will not apply to vessels participating under the IFQ program.
c. Trawl Gear Usage. Trawl gear and Council-managed groundfish may not be on board a vessel
at the same time, nor may the gear be deployed, without an LE permit registered for the vessel
and endorsed for trawl gear.
Depending on the type of gear endorsement (see Section 11.3 on the specific type of gear
endorsements):
a.
the period for which the gear endorsement is valid may be limited, and
b.
the gear endorsement may or may not remain valid when the LE permit is transferred.7
Gear endorsements are not separable from the LE permit and therefore may not be transferred
separately from the LE permit. 8
Limitations which apply to a given gear endorsement shall not restrict the use of any other gear
endorsement on the same LE permit.
Rules on the issuance of gear endorsements and other characteristics of the gear endorsements are
specified under sections on each type of gear endorsement (see Section 11.3).
Sector Endorsements
Fixed Gear Sablefish Endorsements
1. The permit and gear endorsement requirements of the license limitation program limit the number
of vessels which may participate in the groundfish fishery; however, there is still substantial
opportunity for vessels to shift between segments of the groundfish fishery. One of the segments
of the LE fishery subject to an increase in the number of vessels participating is the LE fixed gear
sablefish fishery. To prevent the movement of vessels from non-sablefish segments of the LE fixed
gear groundfish fishery to the sablefish segment of the fishery, a fixed gear sablefish endorsement
for LE permits is required for longline and fishpot gear LE vessels to take sablefish against the
fixed gear LE allocation and as part of the primary fishery, the major LE fixed gear sablefish harvest
opportunities north of 36⁰ N latitude. Such endorsements are not required to harvest under fixed
gear LE daily-trip-limit or other regulations intended to allow low level or incidental harvest.
2. The fixed gear sablefish endorsement will be affixed to the permit.
3. The fixed gear sablefish endorsement will remain valid when the permit is transferred.
4. Fixed gear sablefish endorsements are not separable from the LE permit and therefore may not be
7
8
Unless otherwise noted:
a. Transferable means separable from the vessel owner and vessel.
b. LE permit transferability, with respect to an owner, means the LE permit may be transferred, inherited, sold, bartered,
traded, given or otherwise alienated from the LE permit owner.
c. LE permit transferability, with respect to a vessel, means the LE permit may be registered for use with a different vessel.
The intent of this provision is to not allow the fishing capacity to expand by separate transfer of endorsements which might
otherwise go unused.
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
127
December 2023
transferred separately from the LE permit.
5. Limitations which apply to the fixed gear sablefish endorsement and fishing there under shall not
restrict the use of any trawl gear endorsement on the same LE permit, unless these restrictions are
specific in their application to trawl gear.
6. Rules on the issuance of fixed gear sablefish endorsements and other characteristics of the
endorsements are specified in Section 11.2.
The fixed gear sablefish endorsement is intended for operations participating in the fixed gear sablefish
fishery which were significantly active and dependent on the fishery prior to the end of the qualifying period
specified in paragraph 3. The following paragraphs describe qualifying criteria that were used for initial
issuance of the fixed gear sablefish endorsement.
1. A fixed gear sablefish endorsement will be affixed to any LE permit which meets the fixed gear
sablefish endorsement qualifying criteria.
2. The catch history used to determine whether a permit meets the fixed gear sablefish endorsement
qualifying criteria is the permit catch history. Permit catch history includes the catch history of the
vessel(s) that initially qualified for the permit and the catch of any other vessels with which the
permit rights were associated during the time the rights were associated with the vessel (if the
current permit is the result of the combination of multiple permits, then for the combined permit to
qualify for an endorsement, at least one of the permits which were combined must have sufficient
sablefish history to qualify for an endorsement on its own; or the permit must qualify based on
catch occurring after it has combined but within the qualifying period). Permit catch history also
includes the catch of any interim permit held by the current owner of the permit during the pendency
of an appeal on a permit denied under the groundfish LE program, but only if (1) the appeal on
which the interim permit was based was lost and (2) the owner's current permit was used by the
owner in the 1995 LE sablefish fishery.
3. The fixed gear sablefish endorsement qualifying criteria are at least 16,000 pounds round weight
of sablefish caught with longline or fishpot gear in one year from 1984 to 1994. All catch must be
non-Indian harvest from Council-managed areas. Harvest taken in tribal set-aside fisheries does
not qualify.
4. The NMFS issuing authority will have broad authority to examine information other than codes on
landing tickets in determining whether the qualifying criteria is or is not met.
Pacific whiting Catcher-processor (CP) Endorsement
The class of CP endorsed permits (CP permits) is limited by an endorsement placed on an LE permit. LE
permits registered to qualified catcher-processor vessels are endorsed as CP permits. A qualified permit is
one that harvested and processed in the catcher-processor sector of the Pacific whiting fishery at any time
from 1997 through 2003. A vessel that is 75 feet or less LOA that harvests whiting and, in addition to
heading and gutting, cuts the tail off and freezes the whiting, is not considered to be a catcher-processor
nor is it considered to be processing fish. Such a vessel is considered a participant in the shorebased whiting
sector, and is subject to regulations and allocations for that sector (50 CFR 660.373(a)(3). Therefore, such
vessels do not require a CP endorsement.
Pacific whiting Catcher Vessel (CV(MS)) Endorsement
Permits with a qualifying history are designated as CV(MS) permits through the addition of an endorsement
to their LE groundfish permit. Only vessels registered to an LE permit with a CV(MS) endorsement may
participate in the Pacific whiting mothership-processor fishery. A qualified permit is one that has a total of
more than 500 mt of whiting deliveries to motherships from 1994 through 2003.
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
128
December 2023
Size Endorsement Will Specify the Vessel Length
The LE base permit will be endorsed with the length overall (as defined for purposes of U.S. Coast Guard
documentation) of the vessel for which the LE permit is initially issued. The length for which the LE permit
is endorsed will be changed only when LE permits are combined, as per Section 11.2.11. 9 Vessels which
do not have documents stating their length overall will have to be measured by a marine surveyor or the
U.S. Coast Guard and certified for that length. 10
If the Council establishes a permit stacking program, that program may or may not require that permits
stacked on top of the base LE permit be endorsed with the length overall of the vessel holding the permits.
An LE Permit and Necessary Gear Endorsements Will Be Held by the Owner of
Record of the Vessel
1. The vessel owner is responsible for acquiring and holding an LE permit with the necessary gear
endorsement(s) for each vessel that is required to have an LE permit to catch Council-managed
groundfish under the LE system (vessels fishing LE gear under the limited access quota and
regulations).
2. The vessel owner is responsible for acquiring and holding an LE permit with the longline or fishpot
endorsement(s), and fixed gear sablefish endorsement(s), for each vessel that is required to have
such endorsements to catch Council-managed sablefish under the LE system (vessels fishing
longline and fishpot gear against the LE fixed gear sablefish allocation and under LE fixed gear
sablefish regulations during fishing periods specified in the regulations and north of 36⁰ N latitude).
3. The vessel owner is responsible for maintaining NMFS-required documentation of the LE permit
on board the vessel.
4. The LE permit will be used with one vessel only. That vessel must be declared and registered with
the NMFS issuing authority. Registration is incomplete until acknowledged in writing by NMFS.
(Transfer of an LE permit to a different vessel is allowed as per Section 11.2.9.)
5. A vessel owner may not use a vessel, or allow a vessel to be used, to catch any Council-managed
groundfish with LE gear under the limited access quota and regulations unless the vessel owner
holds an LE permit with gear endorsement(s) which explicitly allows such catch, and the LE permit
has been registered with NMFS for use with that vessel.
6. A vessel owner may not use a vessel, or allow a vessel to be used, to catch any Council-managed
sablefish with longline or fishpot gear against the LE fixed gear sablefish allocation as part of the
primary fixed gear sablefish fishery specified in the regulations and north of 36⁰ N latitude, unless
the vessel owner holds an LE permit with a longline or fishpot gear endorsement and a fixed gear
sablefish endorsement, and the LE permit has been registered with NMFS for use with that vessel.
Sablefish endorsements are not required to harvest under fixed gear LE daily-trip-limit or other
regulations intended to allow low level or incidental harvest.
Transfer of an LE Permit to Different Owners or Vessels of the Same Owner
1. LE permits may be transferred to other owners for use with other vessels or used with other vessels
9
10
The FMP included an exception for when LE permits endorsed for trawl gear were transferred to a smaller vessel such that
the LE permit will be reissued with a size endorsement for the length of the smaller vessel (from Amendment 6). This
exception was removed by Amendment 20.
While not an immediate cap on vessel capacity, the size endorsement places an upward limit on the amount by which the
capacity used with an LE permit may increase.
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
129
December 2023
2.
3.
4.
5.
under the same ownership, but will continue to be restricted by size and gear endorsements unless
otherwise designated through a permit stacking program.
Whenever an owner wishes to transfer an LE permit to a different owner or use an LE permit with
a different vessel under the same ownership, the NMFS issuing authority must be notified of the
change. Notification is not complete until acknowledged in writing by NMFS.
LE base permits may be used with vessels greater in length than the endorsed length provided the
increase does not exceed five feet of the endorsed length. Original size endorsements will change
only when LE permits are combined as per Section 11.2.11, or when an LE permit with a trawl
endorsement is transferred to a vessel five feet less in length than the endorsed length. In the latter
case, the LE permit will be reissued with a size endorsement for the length of the smaller vessel.
Regulations may be promulgated to waive this downsizing requirement if the permit was
transferred to a smaller vessel for the purpose of stacking (see Section 11.2.4, paragraph 3).
The transfer of LE permits between vessels or owners may not be used to circumvent vessel landing
limits.
When an LE permit is transferred to a different owner or vessel, provisional “A,” “B,” and
designated species “B” gear endorsements will become invalid, unless the transfer is caused by the
total loss of a vessel (as per Section 11.2.10) and ownership of the LE permit is not transferred.
Loss of a Vessel
Loss of a Vessel Prior to Permit Issuance
1. A “B” or provisional “A” endorsement will be issued for a vessel which qualified for a “B” or
provisional “A” endorsement but is lost before the LE permits are issued. The vessel must be
replaced within two years of the loss unless otherwise determined by the NMFS regional director,
and the requirements of the third paragraph of Section 11.2.8 apply. The validity of the “B” or
provisional “A” gear endorsement on transfer of the LE permit to the new vessel will be subject to
review by the NMFS review authority.
2. For a vessel that would qualify an owner for an “A” endorsement, in the case of a vessel's sinking
or total loss, all rights to a permit from the fishing history of the vessel prior to the sinking or total
loss remain with the owner at the time of sinking or total loss unless specifically transferred. The
vessel must be replaced within two years of the loss, unless otherwise determined by the NMFS
regional director, and the requirements of the third paragraph of Section 11.2.8 apply.
Loss of a Vessel after Permit Issuance
In the event that a vessel is totally lost, the provisional “A” or “B” gear endorsements on an LE permit will
remain valid if the LE permit is transferred to a different vessel owned by the same LE permit owner,
subject to the following: (1) the replacement vessel may not exceed the endorsed length by five feet of the
official length overall and (2) the lost vessel is replaced within two years of the loss unless otherwise
determined by the NMFS regional director, and the requirements of the third paragraph of Section 11.2.8
apply. The validity of the provisional “A” or “B” gear endorsements on transfer of the LE permit to the
new vessel will be subject to review by the NMFS review authority.
Combining LE Permits
1. Two or more LE permits with “A” gear endorsements for the same type of LE gear (either trawl,
longline or fishpot) may be combined (based on specific criteria) to “step-up” to a permit with a
larger size endorsement. NMFS, with professional advice of marine architects and other qualified
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
130
December 2023
individuals, and after consultation with the Council and review board, will develop and implement
a standardized measure of harvest capacity for the purpose of determining the appropriate endorsed
length for LE permits created by combining two or more permits possessing smaller length
endorsements. The capacity represented by the appropriate length endorsement for the combined
permit should not exceed the sum of the capacities of the LE permits being combined.
2. LE permits may not be divided to “step-down” to more than one permit with smaller size
endorsements.
3. Survival of gear endorsements. When LE permits are combined, “A” endorsements identical on
both LE permits will remain valid. Provisional “A,” “B,” and designated species “B” gear
endorsements will generally become invalid because they are not separable from the vessel for
which they are initially issued. (See table below for examples.)
1st Permit
Endorsement on 1st
LE Permit
“A” - Trawl
“A” - Longline
“A” - Trawl
“A” - Pot
“A” - Trawl
+
2nd Permit
Endorsements on 2nd LE Permit
“A” - Pot
“A” - Longline
Provisional “A” - Trawl
“B” - Pot
Designated Species “B” - Shortbelly - Trawl
=
Combined Permit
Endorsements on the Combined LE
Permit
None
“A” - Longline
None
None
None
4. Survival of Fixed Gear Sector Endorsements. Fixed gear sablefish endorsements will remain valid
only if all the longline or fishpot permits being combined have fixed gear sablefish endorsements.
5. Survival of Trawl Sector Endorsements. When a CP-endorsed LE permit is combined with an LE
trawl permit without a CP-endorsement a single CP-endorsed permit with a larger size endorsement
will result. A CV(MS) endorsement on a permit being combined with a CP-endorsed permit will
not be reissued on the resulting permit. If a CV(MS) endorsed permit is combined with a permit
without a sector endorsement, the CV(MS) endorsement is retained on the resulting permit. The
resulting size endorsement will be determined based on the permit combination formula authorized
in paragraph 1 above.
Permit Renewal
1. Permits must be renewed each year between October 1 and November 30 in order to remain valid
for the following calendar year.
2. Notice of upcoming renewal periods will be sent by September 15 each year to the most recent
address as provided to the permit issuing authority by the permit holder. It shall be the permit
holder's responsibility to provide the permit issuing authority with address changes in a timely
manner.
3. An annual fee will be charged which reflects the administrative costs of maintaining the permit
system.
4. Failure to renew during this period will result in expiration of the permit at the end of the calendar
year.
5. Once a permit has expired because of failure to renew during the renewal period, it may not
subsequently be renewed or reissued, except through an appeals process.
6. If a permit expires because of failure to renew, the permit holder may appeal for reissuance,
provided the appeal is received by the issuance review authority by March 31 of the following year.
Conditions for reissuance of a permit are listed in Section 11.3.5.
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
131
December 2023
Owner-on-board Requirements
In order to preserve the social and historic characteristics and practices in the fishery or to encourage the
flow of fishery benefits to fishing communities, on the Council’s recommendation, as it deems appropriate
and consistent with the goals of the groundfish FMP and National Standards, NMFS may require permit
owners to be on-board a vessel during fishing operations.
[Amended: 9, 13, 14, 15, 20, 21]
11.3
Multilevel Gear Endorsement System
This section contains a description of the characteristics specific to each type of gear endorsement. Gear
endorsements may not be transferred separate from the LE permit to which they are affixed. An LE permit
confers no rights without a valid gear endorsement attached. These and other general characteristics of all
gear endorsements are described in Section 11.2.5.
“A” Gear Endorsement
Overview of the “A” Endorsement
The “A” endorsement is intended for participants who were significantly active in the groundfish fishery
with LE gear(s) during the qualifying window period (July 11, 1984 through August 1, 1988). The “A”
endorsement allows the catch of all Council-managed groundfish species with the specified gear, remains
valid when the LE permit is transferred, and is valid for an unlimited period of time (subject to Section
11.1.4) except as noted.
Description, Use and Transferability of the “A” Endorsement
1. Each “A” endorsement affixed to an LE permit will specify the type of gear with which the LE
permit may be used (e.g., “A-Trawl”).
2. The vessel for which the LE permit is registered will be allowed to catch all Council-managed
groundfish with the gear specified in the “A” endorsement, except for fixed gear sablefish as
specified in Section 11.2.6.1.
3. The “A” endorsement will remain valid when the LE permit is transferred to a different owner or
vessel.
“A” Endorsement Initial Issuance Criteria
1. An “A” endorsement will be affixed to a vessel's LE permit for each gear the vessel qualifies with
under these “A” endorsement initial issuance criteria.
2. Vessels must qualify separately for each gear that an “A” gear endorsement is requested.
3. A current owner of a vessel 11 that meets the minimum landing requirements (MLRs) (as per the
following paragraph) within the window period (July 11, 1984 and August 1, 1988) may receive
an “A” endorsement. 12
11
12
Only the current owner of a qualifying vessel at the time the permit is initially issued will be issued an LE permit (except in
the case of vessel loss as per Section 11.2.10.1 paragraph 2). Without this provision, a single vessel could qualify several
owners for LE permits. If private contractual arrangements have been made between a vessel buyer and seller to reserve to
the seller the right to the LE permit issued for the vessel, the LE permit may ultimately be issued to the vessel seller in place
of the current owner.
Notice of this qualification period was published in the Federal Register on August 4, 1998 (53 FR 29337).
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
132
December 2023
4. MLRs are gear-specific amounts of landings or deliveries (joint-venture or domestic) of west coast
groundfish. The MLRs for the LE gears which must be met during the window period would be as
follows:
Trawl: At least 9 days in which over 500 pounds of any groundfish species except Pacific whiting are
landed or delivered, or 450 mt of landings or deliveries of any groundfish species except Pacific
whiting, or 17 days in which over 500 pounds of Pacific whiting are landed or delivered, or 3,750
mt of landings or deliveries of Pacific whiting.
Longline: At least 6 days in which over 500 pounds of any groundfish species are landed or delivered,
or 37.5 mt of landings or deliveries of any groundfish species.
Fishpot: At least 5 days in which over 500 pounds of any groundfish species are landed or delivered,
or 150 mt of landings or deliveries of any groundfish species.
5. Landings coded as groundfish trawl, longline or fishpot gear may be credited toward meeting the
MLRs for the gear except any landing with:
a. salmon in it will not be counted toward meeting MLRs with longline gear;
b. shrimp in it will not be counted toward meeting MLRs with trawl gear; 13
c. abnormal catches for the indicated gear may result in an issuing authority review of the
validity of all tickets presented as evidence of meeting MLRs and a request by the issuing
authority that additional evidence be presented that the gear was actually used.
6. In addition to the specifications of the above paragraph, the NMFS issuing authority will have
broad authority to examine information other than codes on landing tickets in determining whether
MLRs are or are not met by a particular vessel and gear.
7. Prior to permit issuance, all rights of a vessel owner to an “A” endorsement will be considered
transferred with the sale of the qualifying vessel unless otherwise stipulated in a contract. 14
8. Vessel owners who acquire a provisional “A” endorsement will receive an “A” endorsement after
meeting the upgrade criteria (Section 11.3.2.4), provided all other requirements of the LE program
are met.
9. Members of local LE programs which have been Council certified and incorporated by the issuing
authority (as per Section 11.3.1.4) may be issued “A” endorsements subject to the following
constraint. The “A” endorsements issued on the basis of a vessel's membership in a certified LE
program will be valid only when the vessel for which it is registered is operating under and in
conformance with the certified program.
10. The NMFS review authority will have discretionary powers to grant exceptions to the qualification
criteria on specified grounds. The basis on which the NMFS review authority may grant exceptions
are described in Section 11.3.5.
Incorporation of Small Limited Entry Fleets
1. Small LE programs which are operated by local governments, in existence as of July 11, 1991 and
have negligible impacts on the resource may be certified as consistent with the goals and objectives
of this LE program and incorporated into the Federal LE program.
2. The purpose of this provision is to recognize and provide for small fisheries with unique cultural
and social importance that are dependent on the groundfish resource but have negligible impacts
on the resource, as long as the size and number of vessels in the fishery are sufficiently controlled
through a LE program under local jurisdiction.
13
14
The Council notes that in Washington when shrimp and groundfish are landed together, tickets are sometimes filled out for
the groundfish and shrimp separately. The issuing authority will have to be aware of such circumstances in evaluating whether
a vessel meets MLRs with trawl gear.
If by contractual agreement permit rights are transferred separate from the vessel, the LE permit size and gear endorsements
will continue to be restricted to those which would have been issued to the originally qualifying vessel as per Federal Register
notice 55 FR 29337.
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
133
December 2023
3. A representative of a small LE fleet may apply to NMFS to be certified as consistent with the goals
and objectives of this LE program and incorporated into the LE program. NMFS will refer the
application to the permit issuance review board. The board will provide its recommendations to
the Council, which in turn will provide its recommendation, together with the reasons therefore, to
NMFS. If NMFS determines that a fleet meets the goals and objectives of this LE program and the
standards of this section, it shall certify the fleet and incorporate it into the LE program.
4. If a fleet is certified and incorporated into the LE program, vessels in the fleet at the time of
incorporation will be issued LE permits with “A” endorsements as provided in Section 11.3.1.3.
5. A permit issued to a vessel in a certified fleet under this section is only valid when the vessel for
which it is registered is operating under and in conformance with the certified program. Such a
permit and endorsement may be transferred to another vessel that will operate in the same certified
fleet as long as the total number of vessels in the fleet does not increase.
6. If more vessels are added to a fleet in a certified LE program, these additional vessels will not
receive “A” endorsements unless the program is recertified for the greater number of vessels, and
the larger fleet is incorporated into the LE program.
7. For each certified fleet, there may be an upper limit placed on the amount of groundfish that vessels
operating in the certified fleet may land.
Expiration of the “A” Endorsement
The “A” endorsement is valid for an unlimited period of time, except as noted in Section 11.1.4 and Section
11.2.11.
Provisional “A” Gear Endorsement—Overview
The provisional “A” endorsement was intended for: (1) the vessel owner who, during the window period,
was preparing through construction, conversion or purchase to use a vessel with LE gear in the west coast
groundfish fisheries; (2) the owner of a replacement vessel who would have otherwise received an “A”
endorsement on an LE permit endorsed for a smaller-sized replaced vessel when the replacement has
occurred prior to September 30, 1990; and (3) owners of a vessel that landed sufficient groundfish during
the window but using a gear type that had been prohibited by a state (Washington, Oregon or California)
or the Secretary of Commerce subsequent to the window period. The purpose of the provisional “A”
endorsement was to require the owner demonstrate, by actual catching activity, intent to participate in the
west coast groundfish fisheries with the vessel and LE gear. When intent had been demonstrated (as per
Section 11.3.2.4), the provisional “A” endorsement could have been upgraded to an “A” endorsement. The
provisional “A” endorsement allowed the catch of all Council-managed groundfish species with the
specified gear became invalid when the LE permit was transferred, except in the case of a lost vessel and
was valid for a maximum of three years.
“B” Gear Endorsement—Overview
The “B” endorsement was intended for the vessel owner who was active in the west coast groundfish fishery
prior to the cut-off date (August 1, 1988) with a LE gear, but did not land sufficient groundfish with the
gear during the window period to qualify for an “A” endorsement. The “B” endorsement provided for an
adjustment period during which a vessel owner could seek to acquire a permit with an “A” endorsement or
find an alternative fishery. The “B” endorsement, which allowed the catch of all Council-managed
groundfish species with the gear and vessel specified in the endorsement, became invalid when the LE
permit was transferred or after December 31, 1986, which was three years after implementation of the LE
program. To qualify for a “B” endorsement, an owner must have owned a vessel which met the initial
issuance requirements and must have owned it during and continually since the time the qualifying activities
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
134
December 2023
occurred.
In accordance with the FMP, the “B” endorsement program expired on December 31, 1996. Amendment
13 to the FMP removed expired “B” endorsement language from the FMP.
Designated Species “B” Gear Endorsements—Overview
The designated species “B” gear endorsement was intended to allow for expansion of domestic processing
of underutilized species in the event the LE fleet (those holding LE permits other than the designated species
“B” endorsement holders) was unwilling to harvest the full amount of the underutilized species desired by
domestic processors or ABC, whichever was less. In this event, designated species “B” endorsements
would have been issued to harvesters willing to deliver to domestic processors. In addition, the endorsement
may have been issued when the possibility existed that an apportionment to total allowable level of foreign
fishing would occur. In that event, designated species “B” endorsements would have been issued to
harvesters willing to deliver to JV processors. A separate endorsement was required for each combination
of gear type and species. The designated species “B” endorsement allowed the catch of the specified species
with the gear and vessel specified in the endorsement. The endorsement became invalid when the LE
permit was transferred and would have expired at the end of the fishing year.
Amendment 12 to the FMP declared all species managed under the FMP to be fully utilized. Amendment
13 removed the designated species “B” endorsement option from the FMP.
Exceptions to the Issuance Criteria and Grounds for Appeal
1. Exceptions may be granted for the time limit on replacing lost vessels, and requirements for
timeliness with respect to applications for permits and permit renewal, for good cause. With respect
to permit renewal, only illness, injury or death of one of the vessel owners will be considered good
cause. Additionally, in the following hardship situations, where appropriate, the NMFS issuing
authority may grant exceptions to permit issuance and upgrade criteria, the time limit on replacing
lost vessels, and requirements for timeliness with respect to applications for permits and permit
renewal. 15
a. Insufficient documented landings with legal groundfish gear in the qualifying period due
to disputes over records of landings (evidence other than landing records may be
considered).
b. Construction or conversion criteria are not met due to documentation disputes or delays in
construction or conversion.
c. A qualified vessel was totally lost before permits were issued (the vessel should be replaced
within two years of the loss and the requirements of the third paragraph of Section 11.2.8
apply).
d. Illness or injury.
e. Litigation involving the vessel preventing the vessel owner from making sufficient
landings in the qualifying period.
f. Death of a vessel owner preventing the surviving vessel owner(s) from making sufficient
landings in the qualifying period because the vessel could not be fished.
g. Death of a vessel owner preventing fulfillment of upgrade criteria for converting a
provisional “B” endorsement to an “A” endorsement.
2. Implementation of the license limitation program will require exercise of judgment in the
15
Economic hardship, loss or inactivity of a vessel due to a violation (involving the vessel) of domestic laws which prevent the
use of the vessel during the window period will not entitle the owner to a LE permit or endorsement granted through the
review process.
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
135
December 2023
application of particular provisions. Any dispute over how the issuing authority has applied
provisions of the program may be appealed.
[Amendment: 9, 13]
11.4
LE Permit Issuance Review Board
Functions
A permit issuance review board will be created by the Council with three functions:
1. Review appeals related to issuance of permits and gear endorsements.
2. Make recommendations to the Council on whether a non-federal/non-state LE system in place as
of July 12, 1991 should be certified as being consistent with the goals and objectives of this LE
program, as described in Section 11.1.2.
3. Make reports to the Council on the progress of the program and need for adjustments.
Expenses
The intent of the Council is that the issuance review board be an integral part of the permit issuance process.
As such:
1. the board expenses will be included in determining permit fees; and
2. the board members will be reimbursed for expenses.
Advisory Role of Group
Issuance, administration of permits and review of appeals will be through the issuing and reviewing
authorities (NMFS regional offices). The issuance review board shall function in an advisory capacity only.
Nominations
Nominations for the board may be made by anyone. Selection will be made by the Council or its designee.
Membership
The board should consist of:
1. “Knowledgeable” fishing industry members.
2. 7 to 10 voting members. 16
3. Two-thirds of the members must be present for a quorum.
Majority Vote
A simple majority of those present and voting shall be necessary to take action on a review.
16
The Council should look at the composition of the fishery in each state and determine the appropriate representation from
each gear group so that a broad range of expertise is available to the Council.
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
136
December 2023
Terms of Members
The term for a board member shall be three years. Terms will be staggered.
Review of Sablefish Endorsement Appeals
The Council and Council's LE permit review board will not take part in the review of appeals of denied
sablefish endorsements.
[Amendment 9]
11.5
Implementation, Application and Appeals Process
1. When NMFS announces it is ready to receive applications, individuals must make application to
the issuing entity for LE permits and “A,” provisional “A,” and “B” endorsements within six
months, except as follows: (1) Owners of vessels qualifying for provisional “A” endorsements
under the prohibited gear provisions must make application within six months of the prohibition
date, or six months of the NMFS announcement that it is ready to receive applications, whichever
comes last, and (2) owners of vessels applying for a “B” endorsement after the vessel has failed to
meet the provisional “A” endorsement upgrade criteria, must make application within six months
of failure to meet upgrade criteria or six months of the NMFS announcement that it is ready to
receive applications for permits, whichever comes last.
2. Vessel owners are responsible for submitting evidence that qualification requirements have been
met.
3. Applications to the issuing authority involving the hardship situations and other special
circumstances described in paragraphs 4 and 5 of Section 11.2.3, shall be submitted within six
months of the NMFS announcement that it is ready to receive applications, or six months of the
event which would potentially qualify the applicant for a hardship exemption or under a special
circumstance, whichever comes last.
4. Untimely applications will be rejected and no permit will be issued thereon. To be timely, an
application must provide all of the information required in the NMFS application announcement or
in the application form, by the deadline specified in paragraph 1 of this section. If the application
is complete and valid, NMFS may request any supplementary information it needs to act on the
permit application.
5. If an application is denied, the applicant may appeal to the NMFS regional director. In making
such an appeal, the applicant may request that in deciding the issue, the NMFS regional director
consult with the Council and its review board. Such a consultation would require the applicant to
waive any rights to confidentiality of information.
6. At the time of implementation, NMFS, in consultation with the Council, will set and publish in the
Federal Register a date after which all vessels using LE gear to catch Council-managed groundfish
under the LE quota and management regulations will be required to have an LE permit with
endorsements allowing such activity.
7. NMFS will establish a reasonable application period for the fixed gear sablefish endorsement.
Untimely applications will be rejected and no sablefish endorsement will be issued thereon. If an
application is denied, the applicant may appeal to the NMFS regional director. NMFS will set and
publish in the Federal Register a date after which requirements for fixed gear sablefish
endorsements will be in effect.
[Amendment 9]
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
137
December 2023
11.6
Council Review and Monitoring
On an annual basis, either the NMFS issuing authority or the issuance review board will review the
economic status of the fishery and the fishing fleet, and issue a status report to the Council evaluating
achievement of the goals and objectives established for the LE system.
[Amendment 6 added chapter]
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
138
December 2023
REFERENCES
Allen, M. J. 1982. Functional structure of soft-bottom fish communities of the southern California shelf.
Ph.D Dissertation. University of California.
Alverson, D. L., A. T. Pruter, and L. L. Ronholt. 1964. A Study of Demersal Fishes and Fisheries of the
Northeastern Pacific Ocean. Vancouver, British Columbia: Institute of Fisheries, University of
British Columbia.
Bence, J. R. and J. E. Hightower. 1990. Status of bocaccio in the Conception/Monterey/Eureka INPFC
areas in 1990. In Appendix to Status of the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Through 1990 and
Recommended Acceptable Biological Catches for 1991 (SAFE Report) Portland: Pacific Fishery
Management Council.
Bence, J. R. and J. B. Rogers. 1992. Status of bocaccio in the Conception/Monterey/Eureka INPFC areas
in 1992. In Appendix to Status of the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Through 1992 and
Recommended Acceptable Biological Catches for 1993 (SAFE Report) Portland, OR: Pacific
Fishery Management Council.
Bond, A. B., Jr J S.Stephens, D. Pondella, M. J. Allen, and M. Helvey. 1998. A method for estimating
marine habitat values based on fish guilds, with comparisons between sites in the Southern
California Bight. 1 1998. Asilomar, California.
Brodeur, R. D. 2001. Habitat-specific distribution of Pacific ocean perch (Sebastes alutus) in Pribilof
Canyon, Bering Sea. Continental Shelf Research 21(3):207-224.
Browning, R. J. 1980. Fisheries of the North Pacific: History, Species, Gear, & Processes. Anchorage,
Alaska: Alaska Northwest Publishing Company.
Butler, J. L. and Barnes, T. 2000. Cowcod rebuilding. Portland, OR: Pacific Fishery Management
Council. Unpublished report.
Butler, J. L., T. Barnes, P. Crone, and R. Conser. 2003. Cowcod rebuilding review. In Volume 1: Status of
the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Through 2003 and Recommended Acceptable Biological
Catches for 2004 (Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation) Portland, OR: Pacific Fishery
Management Council.
Butler, J. L., L. D. Jacobson, J. T. Barnes, H. G. Moser, and R. Collins. 1999. Stock assessment of
cowcod. In Appendix to Status of the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Through 1998 and
Recommended Acceptable Biological Catches for 1999 (SAFE Report) Portland, OR: Pacific
Fishery Management Council.
Clark, W. G. 1993. The effect of recruitment variability on the choice of a target level of spawning
biomass per recruit. Pages 233-246 in Kruse, G., R. J. Marasco, C. Pautzke, and T.J.Quinn II,
eds.Alaska Sea Grant College Program Report No.93-02, University of Alaska Fairbanks.
Conser, R. J., J. J. Maguire, R. Methot, P. Spencer, R. Moore, and M. Saelens. 2003. Widow rockfish
STAR Panel meeting report. In Volume 1: Status of the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery
Through 2003 and Recommended Acceptable Biological Catches for 2004 (Stock Assessment and
Fishery Evaluation) Portland, OR: Pacific Fishery Management Council.
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
139
December 2023
Cowardin, L. M., Carter, V., Golet, F., and LaRoe, E. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater
habitats of the United States: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Crone, P. R., R. D. Methot, R. J. Conser, and T. L. Builder. 1999. Status of the canary rockfish resource
off Oregon and Washington in 1999. In Status of the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Through
1998 and Recommended Acceptable Biological Catches for 1999 (SAFE Report) Portland, OR:
Pacific Fishery Management Council.
de Forges, B. R., J. A. Koslow, and G. C. B. Poore. 2000. Diversity and endemism of the benthic
seamount fauna in the southwest Pacific. Nature 405(6789):944-947.
Dower, J. F. and R. I. Perry. 2001. High abundance in larval rockfish over Cobb Seamount, an isolated
seamount in the Northeast Pacific. Fisheries Oceanography 10(3):268-274.
Ebeling, A. W., R. J. Larson, and W. S. Alevizon. 1980. Annual variability of reef-fish assemblages in
kelp forest off Santa Barbara, California. U. S. Natl. Mar. Fish. Serv. Fish. Bull. 78:361-377.
Eschmeyer, W. N., E. S. Herald, and H. Hammon. 1983. A Field Guide to Pacific Coast Fishes of North
America. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Feder, H. M., C. H. Turner, and C. Limbaugh. 1974. Observations on fishes associated with kelp beds in
southern California. California Department of Fish and Game, Fish Bull. 160:1-144.
Foster, M. S. and Schiel, D. R. 1985. The ecology of giant kelp forests in California: A community
profile. U. S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Biol. Rep. 85(7.2).
Genin, A., L. Haury, and P. Greenblatt. 1988. Interactions of migrating zooplankton with shallow
topography: Predation by rockfishes and intensification of patchiness. Deep-Sea Research
35(2):151-175.
Haertel, L. and C. Osterberg. 1967. Ecology of Zooplankton, Benthos and Fishers in the Columbia River
Estuary. Ecology 48(3):459-472.
Hamel, O. S. 2006. Rebuilding Update for Pacific Ocean Perch. In Volume 3: Status of the Pacific Coast
Groundfish Fishery Through 2005, Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation: Stock Assessments
and Rebuilding Analyses Portland, OR: Pacific Fishery Management Council.
Haury, L., C. Fey, C. Newland, and January 2000 A.Genin....() pp. 2000. Zooplankton Distribution
around four eastern North Pacific seamounts. Progress in Oceanography 45(1):69-105.
He, X., A. Punt, A. D. MacCall, and S. Ralston. 2006. Rebuilding Analysis for Widow Rockfish in 2005.
In Volume 3: Status of the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Through 2005, Stock Assessment
and Fishery Evaluation: Stock Assessments and Rebuilding Analyses Portland, OR: Pacific
Fishery Management Council.
He, X., A. Punt, A. D. MacCall, and S. V. Ralston. 2003a. Rebuilding analysis for widow rockfish in
2003. In Volume 1: Status of the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Through 2003 and
Recommended Acceptable Biological Catches for 2004 (Stock Assessment and Fishery
Evaluation) Portland, OR: Pacific Fishery Management Council.
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
140
December 2023
He, X., S. V. Ralston, A. D. MacCall, D. E. Pearson, and E. J. Dick. 2003b. Status of the widow rockfish
resource in 2003. In Volume 1: Status of the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Through 2003 and
Recommended Acceptable Biological Catches for 2004 (Stock Assessment and Fishery
Evaluation) Portland, OR: Pacific Fishery Management Council.
Herke, W. H. and B. D. Rogers. 1993. Maintenance of the estuarine environment. In Inland Fisheries
Management in North America., edited by Kohler, C. C. and W. A. Hubert. Pages 263-286.
Bethesda, Maryland: American Fisheries Society.
Hoss, D. E. and G. W. Thayer. 1993. The importance of habitat to the early life history of estuarine
dependent fishes. American Fisheries Society Symposium 14:147-158.
Ianelli, J. N. and J. Heifetz. 1995. Decision analysis of alternative harvest policies for the Gulf of Alaska
Pacific ocean perch fishery. Fisheries Research 24:35-63.
Ianelli, J. N., M. Wilkins, and S. Harley. 2000. Status and future prospects for the Pacific ocean perch
resource in waters off Washington and Oregon as assessed in 2000. In Appendix to Status of the
Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Through 2000 and Recommended Acceptable Biological
Catches for 2001 (Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation) Portland, OR: Pacific Fishery
Management Council.
Ianelli, J. N. and Zimmerman, M. 1998. Status and future prospects for the Pacific ocean perch resource
in waters off Washington and Oregon as assessed in 1998. Portland, OR: Pacific Fishery
Management Council.
Lavelle, J. W., E. T. Baker, and G. A. Cannon. 2003. Ocean currents at Axial Volcano, a northeastern
Pacific seamount. Journal of Geophysical Research 108(C2):3020.
Lenarz, W. H. 1993. An initial examination of the status of the darkblotched rockfish fishery off the
coasts of California, Oregon, and Washington. In Appendix C in Appendices to the Status of the
Pacific Coast Groundfish Through 1993 and Recommended Acceptable Biological Catches for
1994.
Love, M. S. 1991. Probably More Than You Want to Know About the Fishes of the Pacific Coast. Santa
Barbara, California: Really Big Press.
Love, M. S., Morris, P., McCrae, M., and Collins, R. 1990. Life history aspects of 19 rockfish species
(Scorpaenidae: Sebastes) from the southern California bight. NOAA, NMFS Tech. Rep. 87.
Love, M. S., M. Yoklavich, and L. Thorsteinson. 2002. The Rockfishes of the Northeast Pacific. Berkeley,
California: University of California Press.
MacCall, A. D. 2006. Bocaccio Rebuilding Analysis for 2005. In Volume 1: Status of the Pacific Coast
Groundfish Fishery Through 2005, Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation: Stock Assessments
and Rebuilding Analyses Portland, OR: Pacific Fishery Management Council.
MacCall, A. D. 2002. Status of bocaccio off California in 2002. In Volume 1 Status of the Pacific Coast
Groundfish Fishery Through 2002 and Recommended Acceptable Biological Catches for 2003
(Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation) Portland, OR: Pacific Fishery Management Council.
MacCall, A. D. 2003a. Bocaccio rebuilding analysis for 2003. In Volume 1: Status of the Pacific Coast
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
141
December 2023
Groundfish Fishery Through 2003 and Recommended Acceptable Biological Catches for 2004
(Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation) Portland, OR: Pacific Fishery Management Council.
MacCall, A. D. 2003b. Status of bocaccio off California in 2003. In Volume 1: Status of the Pacific Coast
Groundfish Fishery Through 2003 and Recommended Acceptable Biological Catches for 2004
(Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation) Portland, OR: Pacific Fishery Management Council.
MacCall, A. D. and X. He. 2002. Bocaccio rebuilding analysis for 2002. In Volume 1: Status of the
Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Through 2002 and Recommended Acceptable Biological
Catches for 2003 (Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation) Portland, OR: Pacific Fishery
Management Council.
MacCall, A. D., S. Ralston, D. Pearson, and E. Williams. 1999. Status of bocaccio off California in 1999
and outlook for the next millennium. In Appendix to Status of the Pacific Coast Groundfish
Fishery Through 1999 and Recommended Acceptable Biological Catches for 2000 (Stock
Assessment and Fishery Evaluation) Portland, OR: Pacific Fishery Management Council.
Mace, P. M. 1994. Relationships between common biological reference points used as thresholds and
targets of fisheries management strategies. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences
51:110-122.
Methot, R. D. 2000a. Rebuilding analysis for canary rockfish. Portland, OR: Unpublished report prepared
for the Pacific Fishery Management Council.
Methot, R. D. 2000b. Technical description of the stock synthesis assessment program. NOAA Technical
Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-43.
Methot, R. D. and K. Piner. 2002a. Rebuilding analysis for canary rockfish update to incorporate results
of coastwide assessment in 2002. In In Volume 1 Status of the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery
Through 2002 and Recommended Acceptable Biological Catches for 2003 (Stock Assessment and
Fishery Evaluation) Portland, OR: Pacific Fishery Management Council.
Methot, R. D. and K. Piner. 2002b. Rebuilding analysis for yelloweye rockfish: update to incorporate
results of coastwide assessment in 2002. In Volume 1: Status of the Pacific Coast Groundfish
Fishery Through 2003 and Recommended Acceptable Biological Catches for 2004 (Stock
Assessment and Fishery Evaluation) Portland, OR: Pacific Fishery Management Council.
Methot, R. D. and K. Piner. 2002c. Status of the canary rockfish resource off California, Oregon and
Washington in 2001. In Volume 1 Status of the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Through 2002
and Recommended Acceptable Biological Catches for 2003 (Stock Assessment and Fishery
Evaluation) Portland, OR: Pacific Fishery Management Council.
Methot, R. D. and Rogers, J. 2001. Rebuilding analysis for darkblotched rockfish. Portland, OR:
Unpublished report prepared for the Pacific Fishery Management Council.
Methot, R. D. and I. J. Stewart. 2006. Status of the U.S. canary rockfish resource in 2005. In Volume 6:
Status of the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Through 2005, Stock Assessment and Fishery
Evaluation: Stock Assessments and Rebuilding Analyses Portland, OR: Pacific Fishery
Management Council.
Methot, R. D., F. Wallace, and K. Piner. 2003. Status of yelloweye rockfish off the U.S. West Coast in
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
142
December 2023
2002. In Volume 1: Status of the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Through 2003 and
Recommended Acceptable Biological Catches for 2004 (Stock Assessment and Fishery
Evaluation) Portland, OR: Pacific Fishery Management Council.
Miller, D. J. and R. N. Lea. 1972. Guide to the coastal marine fishes of California. Calif. Dept. Fish and
Game, Fish. Bull. 157:249.
Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary. 2005. SIMoN: Sanctuary Integrated Monitoring Network
[WWW].
MRAG Americas Inc., TerraLogic GIS Inc., NMFS Northwest Fisheries Science Center FRAM Division,
and NMFS Northwest Region. 2004. Identification of Essential Fish Habitat for the Pacific
Groundfish FMP. Portland, OR: Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission. Apr. 2004. Exhibit
C.6.b, Attachment 1, April 2004 Council Meeting.
Mullineaux, L. S. and S. W. Mills. 1997. A test of the larval retention hypothesis in seamount-generated
flows. Deep Sea Research 44(5):745-770.
Myers, R. A., Barrowman, N. J., and Hilborn, R. 2000. The Meta-analysis of the maximum reproductive
rate for fish populations to estimate harvest policy; a review.: Unpublished report distributed at
the March 20-23, 2000, West Coast Groundfish Harvest Rate Policy Workshop sponsored by the
Scientific and Statistical Committee of the Pacific Fishery Management Council.
National Research Council. 2002. Effects of Trawling and Dredging on Seafloor Habitat. Washington,
D.C.: National Academy Press.
O'Connell, V. M. and D. W. Carlile. 1993. Habitat-specific density of adult yelloweye rockfish Sebastes
ruberrimus in the eastern Gulf of Alaska. Fish. Bull. 91:304-309.
O'Connell, V. M. and F. C. Funk. 1986. Age and growth of yelloweye rockfish (Sebastes ruberrimus)
landed in southeastern Alaska. Pages 171-185 in Anchorage, Alaska: Alaska Sea Grant College
Program.
PFMC. 2002. Status of the Pacific coast groundfish fishery through 2001 and recommended acceptable
biological catches for 2002. Stock Assessment and fishery evaluation. Portland, OR: Pacific
Fishery Management Council.
PFMC. 2006. Proposed Groundfish Acceptable Biological Catch and Optimum Yield Specifications and
Management Measures: 2007-2008 Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; Final Environmental
Impact Statement Including Regulatory Impact Review and Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis. Portland, OR: Pacific Fishery Management Council. Oct. 2006.
PFMC. 2016. Terms of Reference for the Groundfish and Coastal Pelagic Species Stock Assessment
Review Process for 2017-2018. Pacific Fishery Management Council, Portland, OR.
Zhou, S., S. Yin, J. T. Thorson, A. D. M. Smith, and M. Fuller. 2012. Linking fishing mortality reference
points to life history traits: an empirical study. Can.J.Fish.Aquat.Sci. 69:1292-1301.
Piner, K. 2006. Cowcod Rebuilding Analysis 2005 Analysis of the Progress towards Rebuilding in the
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
143
December 2023
Southern California Bight. In Volume 1: Status of the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Through
2005, Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation: Stock Assessments and Rebuilding Analyses
Portland, OR: Pacific Fishery Management Council.
Punt, A. E. 2002. SSC default rebuilding analysis: Technical specifications and user manual. Portland,
OR: Pacific Fishery Management Council.
Punt, A. E. and Ianelli, J. N. 2001. Revised rebuilding analysis for Pacific ocean perch. Portland, OR:
Unpublished report to the Pacific Fishery Management Council.
Punt, Andre E. and MacCall, Alec D. 2002. Revised rebuilding analysis for widow rockfish for 2002.
Portland, OR: Unpublished report to the Pacific Fishery management Council.
Ralston, S., J. N. Ianelli, D. E. Pearson, M. E. Wilkins, R. A. Miller, and D. Thomas. 1996. Status of
bocaccio in the Conception/Monterey/Eureka INPFC areas in 1996 and recommendations for
management in 1997. In Appendix Vol. 1: Status of the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery
Through 1996 and Recommended Acceptable Biological Catches for 1997 (Stock Assessment and
Fishery Evaluation) Portland, OR: Pacific Fishery Management Council.
Rogers, J. B. 2006. Update of Darkblotched Rockfish (Sebastes crameri) Rebuilding Analyses. In Volume
3: Status of the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Through 2005, Stock Assessment and Fishery
Evaluation: Stock Assessments and Rebuilding Analyses Portland, OR: Pacific Fishery
Management Council.
Rogers, J. B., R. D. Methot, T. L. Builder, K. Piner, and M. Wilkins. 2000. Status of the darkblotched
rockfish (Sebastes crameri) resource in 2000. In Appendix to Status of the Pacific Coast
Groundfish Fishery Through 2000 and Recommended Acceptable Biological Catches for 2001
(Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation) Portland, OR: Pacific Fishery Management Council.
Rosenthal, R. J., Haldorson, L., Field, L. J., Moran-O'Connell, V., LaRiviere, M. G., Underwood, J., and
Murphy, M. C. 1982. Inshore and shallow offshore bottomfish resources in the southeastern Gulf
of Alaska (1981-1982). Juneau, Alaska: Alaska Dept. Fish and Game.
Sampson, D. B. 1996. Appendix C: Stock status of canary rockfish off Oregon and Washington in 1996.
In Status of the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Through 1996 and Recommended Acceptable
Biological Catches for 1997: Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation, edited by Pacific Fishery
Management Council. Portland, OR: Pacific Fishery Management Council.
Sampson, D. B. and E. M. Stewart. 1994. Appendix G: Status of the canary rockfish resource off Oregon
and Washington in 1994. In Status of the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Through 1994 and
Recommended Acceptable Biological Catches for 1995: Stock Assessment and Fishery
Evaluation Portland, OR: Pacific Fishery Management Council.
Tsou, T. and F. R. Wallace. 2006. Updated Rebuilding Analysis for Yelloweye Rockfish Based on Stock
Assessment in 2006. In Volume 6: Status of the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Through 2005,
Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation: Stock Assessments and Rebuilding Analyses Portland,
OR: Pacific Fishery Management Council.
Wallace, F. R. 2002. Status of the yelloweye rockfish resource in 2001 for northern California and
Oregon waters. In Appendix to the Status of the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Through 2001
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
144
December 2023
and Acceptable Biological Catches for 2002 (Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation) Portland,
OR: Pacific Fishery Management Council.
Williams, E. H., A. D. MacCall, S. Ralston, and D. E. Pearson. 2000. Status of the widow rockfish
resource in Y2K. In Appendix to Status of the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Through 2000
and Recommended Acceptable Biological Catches for 2001 (Stock Assessment and Fishery
Evaluation) Portland, OR: Pacific Fishery Management Council.
Williams, E. H., S. Ralston, A. D. MacCall, D. Woodbury, and D. E. Pearson. 1999. Stock assessment of
the canary rockfish resource in the waters off southern Oregon and California in 1999. In Status
of the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Through 1999 and Recommended Acceptable Biological
Catches for 2000 (Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation) Portland, OR: Pacific Fishery
Management Council.
Wyllie-Echeverria, S. W. and J. D. Ackerman. 2003. The seagrasses of the Pacific Coast of North
America. In World Atlas of Seagrasses, edited by Green, E. P. and F. T. Short. Page 199 – 206.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
145
December 2023
GUIDE TO APPENDICES
In the July 1993 version of the FMP the Appendices appeared as Chapter 11.0. Section 11.10 was added
by Amendment 11 in 1998. Sections 11.1–11.9 contain descriptive material about stocks, fisheries, habitat,
and other applicable laws, which under the proposed revision will become Appendix A. Prior to the
currently proposed amendments, this material was moved out of a chapter format to a separate volume,
causing the remaining chapters in the FMP to be renumbered. The Appendices contain descriptive
information in support of the management program. This material may in some cases be updated without
the need for a formal FMP amendment process. Language to this effect is added to Chapter 1 of the FMP.
The appendices incorporated into the FMP by Amendment 19 and updated by Amendment 28 are described
below. These appendices are reproduced under separate cover.
APPENDIX A: Information in Support of the Management Program
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Biological and Environmental Characteristics of the Resource
Description of the Fishery
Social and Economic Characteristics of the Fishery
History of Management
History of Research
Weather-Related Vessel Safety
Relationship of this FMP to Existing Laws and Policies
Management and Enforcement Costs
APPENDIX B: Pacific Coast Groundfish Essential Fish Habitat (Modified under Amendment 28)
1. Assessment Methodology for Groundfish Essential Fish Habitat
2. Groundfish Life History and Essential Fish Habitat Text Descriptions, Habitat Use Database
Description, and Habitat Suitability Probability Information
APPENDIX C: The Effects of Fishing on West Coast Groundfish Essential Fish Habitat and Current
Conservation Measures (Modified under Amendment 28)
1. The Effects of Fishing on Groundfish Habitat: West Coast Perspective.
2. Coordinates for EFH Conservation Areas
APPENDIX D: Non-fishing Effects on West Coast Groundfish Essential Fish Habitat and
Recommended Conservation Measures (Modified under Amendment 28)
APPENDIX E: Description of Trawl Rationalization (Catch Shares) Program
APPENDIX F: Overfished Species Rebuilding Plans
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
147
December 2023
| File Type | application/pdf |
| File Title | PACIFIC COAST GROUNDFISH FMP |
| Author | Christopher Dahl |
| File Modified | 2023-12-04 |
| File Created | 2023-12-04 |