Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; Fisheries off West Coast States; Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; Biennial Specifications and Management Measures; Amendment 16-4; Pacific Coast Salmon Fishery, 57764-57862 [06-8373]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 189 (Friday, September 29, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 57764-57862]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-8373]



[[Page 57763]]

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

Part VI





Department of Commerce





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



National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration



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



50 CFR Part 660



Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; Fisheries off West Coast States; 
Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; Biennial Specifications and 
Management Measures; Amendment 16-4; Pacific Coast Salmon Fishery; 
Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 189 / Friday, September 29, 2006 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 57764]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 660

[Docket No. 060824226-6226-01; I.D. 082806B]
RIN 0648-AU57


Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; Fisheries off West Coast States; 
Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; Biennial Specifications and 
Management Measures; Amendment 16-4; Pacific Coast Salmon Fishery

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

ACTION:  Proposed rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY:  NMFS proposes a rule to implement Amendment 16-4 to the 
Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP) and to set the 
2007-2008 harvest specifications and management measures for groundfish 
taken in the U.S. exclusive economic zone (EEZ) off the coasts of 
Washington, Oregon, and California. Amendment 16-4 would modify the FMP 
to implement revised rebuilding plans for seven overfished species: 
bocaccio, canary rockfish, cowcod, darkblotched rockfish, Pacific ocean 
perch (POP), widow rockfish, and yelloweye rockfish. Groundfish harvest 
specifications and management measures for 2007-2008 are intended to: 
achieve but not exceed optimum yields (OYs); prevent overfishing; 
rebuild overfished species; reduce and minimize the bycatch and discard 
of overfished and depleted stocks; provide harvest opportunity for the 
recreational and commercial fishing sectors; and, within the commercial 
fisheries, achieve harvest guidelines and limited entry and open access 
allocations as closely as possible. Together, Amendment 16-4 and the 
2007-2008 harvest specifications and management measures are intended 
to rebuild overfished stocks as soon as possible, taking into account 
the status and biology of the stocks, the needs of fishing communities, 
and the interaction of the overfished stocks within the marine 
environment. In addition to the management measures implemented for 
directed and incidental groundfish fisheries, this proposed rule would 
implement a new Yelloweye Rockfish Conservation Area off Washington 
State, which will be closed to commercial salmon troll fishing.

DATES:  Comments must be received no later than 5 p.m., Pacific 
Standard Time, on October 31, 2006.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by I.D. 082806B by any 
of the following methods:
     E-mail: Amendment 16-4.nwr@noaa.gov: Include I.D. 082806B 
in the subject line of the message.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax: 206-526-6736, Attn: Yvonne deReynier
     Mail: D. Robert Lohn, Administrator, Northwest Region, 
NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, Seattle, WA 98115-0070, Attn: Yvonne 
deReynier.
    Information relevant to this proposed rule, which includes a draft 
environmental impact statement (DEIS), a regulatory impact review 
(RIR), and an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) are 
available for public review during business hours at the office of the 
Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council), at 7700 NE Ambassador 
Place, Portland, OR 97220, phone: 503-820-2280. Copies of additional 
reports referred to in this document may also be obtained from the 
Council.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Yvonne deReynier (Northwest Region, 
NMFS), phone: 206-526-6129; fax: 206-526-6736 and; e-mail: 
yvonne.dereynier@noaa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access

    The proposed rule also is accessible via the Internet at the Office 
of the Federal Register's website at https://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/
index.html. Background information and documents, including the DEIS, 
are available at the Council's website at https://www.pcouncil.org.

Background

    Groundfish harvest specifications are the amounts of West Coast 
groundfish species or species groups available to be caught in a 
particular year. Harvest specifications include acceptable biological 
catches (ABCs), optimum yields (OYs), and harvest guidelines (HGs), as 
well as set-asides of harvestable amounts of fish for particular 
fisheries or particular geographic areas. The ABC is a biologically 
based estimate of the amount of fish that may be harvested from the 
fishery each year without jeopardizing the resource. The ABC may be 
modified with precautionary adjustments to account for uncertainty. A 
stock's OY is its target harvest level, and is usually lowered from its 
ABC. The Council's policies on setting ABCs, OYs, and other harvest 
specifications are discussed later in the preamble to this proposed 
rule. Proposed harvest specifications for 2007-2008 are provided in 
proposed Tables 1a through 2c of this proposed rulemaking.
    Management measures set in this biennial management process are 
intended to constrain the fisheries so that OYs of healthier groundfish 
stocks are achieved as much as is practicable within the constraints of 
requirements to rebuild co-occurring overfished groundfish species. In 
order to rebuild overfished species, allowable harvest levels of 
healthy species will only be achieved where such harvest will not deter 
rebuilding of overfished stocks. Routine management measures for the 
commercial fisheries include trip landing and frequency limits, time/
area closures, size limits, and gear restrictions. Routine management 
measures for the recreational fisheries include bag limits, size 
limits, gear restrictions, fish dressing requirements, and time/area 
closures. These measures can be adjusted inseason to achieve but not 
exceed OYs. The groundfish fishery is managed with a variety of other 
regulatory requirements that are not considered routine, and which are 
found at 50 CFR 660, Subpart G. Regulations outside of this rulemaking 
include, but are not limited to long-term harvest allocations, 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements, requirements to carry vessel 
monitoring system (VMS) transceiver units and observers, license 
limitation programs, and essential fish habitat (EFH) protection 
measures.
    The Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP) requires 
the Council to set harvest specifications and management measures for 
groundfish at least biennially. This proposed rule would set 2007-2008 
harvest specifications and management measures for all of the 90+ FMP-
managed groundfish species or species groups, except for Pacific 
whiting. Pacific whiting harvest specifications will be proposed as a 
range via this action, with the final specifications for 2007 and 2008 
to be set following the March 2007 and March 2008 Council meetings, 
respectively.
    Amendment 16-4, which this action proposes concurrently with the 
2007-2008 groundfish specifications and management measures, would 
modify the FMP to implement revised rebuilding plans for the seven 
overfished groundfish species bocaccio, canary rockfish, cowcod, 
darkblotched rockfish, POP, widow rockfish, and yelloweye rockfish 
consistent with the

[[Page 57765]]

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-
Stevens Act) and Natural Resources Defense Council v. NMFS, 421 F.3d 
872 (9th Cir. 2005) [hereinafter NRDC v. NMFS,] discussed below. NMFS 
published a Notice of Availability for Amendment 16-4 on July 28, 2006 
(71 FR 42846.) This proposed rule would modify Federal regulations at 
50 CFR 660.365 per Amendment 16-4 to specify revised target rebuilding 
dates and harvest rates for each overfished species.
    This preamble describes the new approach taken by NMFS, the 
Council, and state and tribal partners in light of NRDC v. NMFS. As in 
past years, this preamble also discusses the Council's ABC and OY 
policies, harvest levels for overfished and all other groundfish 
species or species groups, fishery-specific management measures, and 
other issues related to this 2007-2008 management package. Preambles to 
prior proposed rules on groundfish harvest specifications and 
management measures have also discussed bycatch accounting and 
reduction measures. On June 27, 2006, NMFS published a proposed rule to 
implement Amendment 18 to the FMP on bycatch mitigation (71 FR 36506.) 
The preamble to that proposed rule discussed NMFS and Council bycatch 
accounting and mitigation policies, programs, and regulations. 
Therefore, these issues will only be briefly discussed in this preamble 
as they pertain to 2007-2008 fisheries.

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Ruling

    NRDC v. NMFS, 421 F.3d 872 (9\th\ Cir. 2005,) involved a challenge 
to the 2002 groundfish harvest specifications and management measures, 
specifically the darkblotched rockfish rebuilding plan. In that case, 
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that, pursuant to the Magnuson-
Stevens Act, overfished species rebuilding periods must be as ``short 
as possible, taking into account the status and biology of any 
overfished stock of fish [and] the needs of fishing communities.'' The 
Court also stated, ``Congress intended to ensure that overfished 
species were rebuilt as quickly as possible, but wanted to leave some 
leeway to avoid disastrous short-term consequences for fishing 
communities. . . Section 1854(e)(4)(i)[of the Magnuson-Stevens Act,] 
then, allows the Agency to set limited quotas that would account for 
the short-term needs of fishing communities (for example, to allow for 
some fishing of plentiful species despite the inevitability of 
bycatch), even though this would mean that the rebuilding period would 
take longer than it would under a total fishing ban.'' In light of this 
case, NMFS and the Council are revising all seven of the overfished 
species rebuilding plans by January 1, 2007, and as described in detail 
below, have taken a new approach to developing rebuilding alternatives 
per the court ruling.
Rebuild as Quickly as Possible, Taking Into Account the Status and 
Biology of the Stock
    Stock assessments are intended in part to determine the status of 
each assessed stock relative to its estimated unfished biomass level, 
BUNFISHED. For example, when we say that a stock is at 
B40, we are saying that the stock's abundance is at a level 
that is 40 percent of the abundance level we have estimated for 
BUNFISHED. Under the FMP, stocks that decline to below 25 
percent of estimated BUNFISHED are declared overfished and 
must then be managed under rebuilding plans. The Magnuson-Stevens Act 
requires that overfished stocks be rebuilt to BMSY, which is 
the biomass level at which a stock is estimated to be able to maintain 
its maximum sustainable yield (MSY) over time. The FMP sets a proxy 
BMSY level for all groundfish species at B40; 
therefore, an overfished groundfish stock is considered rebuilt once 
its biomass reaches B40.
    A rebuilding analysis for an overfished species uses the 
information in its stock assessment to determine TMIN, the 
minimum time to rebuild to B40 in the absence of fishing. 
For each stock, its TMIN is dependent on a variety of 
physical and biological factors. The best available scientific 
information on each stock's life history characteristics (e.g., age of 
reproductive maturity, relative productivity at different ages and 
sizes, etc.) and the effects of environmental conditions on its 
abundance (e.g., relative productivity under interannual and 
interdecdal climate variability, availability of suitable feed and 
habitat for different life stages, etc.) is taken into account in its 
stock assessment and rebuilding analysis. For example, one of the 
factors considered in the 2005 widow rockfish stock assessment was that 
widow rockfish tend to be more easily caught in higher abundance during 
El Nino (anomalously warm and dry) years, possibly affecting how data 
from El Nino years is used within a multi-year time series of data. 
TMIN estimates derived from the rebuilding analyses for the 
seven overfished species are provided for each species in the section 
below, ``OY Policies and Rebuilding Parameters for Overfished 
Species.''
    Rebuilding analyses predict TMIN for each overfished 
species and, in doing so, answer the question of what is ``as quickly 
as possible'' for those species. Complete absence of targeted fishing 
mortality, however, does not necessarily result in the complete absence 
of human-induced mortality on any species of fish. Federal regulations 
at 50 CFR 600.310(f)(4)(iii) state, ``All fishing mortality must be 
counted against OY, including that resulting from bycatch, scientific 
research, and any other fishing activities.'' Thus, rebuilding by the 
TMIN date would require elimination of extractive scientific 
fishing, in addition to any target or incidental commercial, 
recreational, or ceremonial and subsistence fishing that results in 
overfished species mortality. Eliminating extractive scientific fishing 
would eliminate a significant portion of the new data that are used to 
update stock assessments and our understanding of the biological 
condition of the majority of groundfish stocks. Because West Coast 
groundfish species are so intermixed, extractive scientific fishing 
would have to be eliminated for all groundfish (overfished and 
healthy), and for some non-groundfish species as well. The Council 
determined that, in order to appropriately take into account the status 
and biology of overfished stocks, both now and in the future, 
scientific take of overfished and other groundfish stocks must 
continue. Scientific fishing needs in 2007 and 2008 for individual 
overfished species are estimated below in the species-specific 
footnotes in Tables 1a and 2a of 50 CFR subpart G.
Rebuild as Quickly as Possible, Taking Into Account the Needs of 
Fishing Communities
    As discussed above, the Court in NRDC v. NMFS stated that 
overfished species should be rebuilt as quickly as possible, but noted 
that Congress ``wanted to leave some leeway to avoid disastrous short-
term consequences for fishing communities.'' The Court also noted that 
the Magnuson-Stevens Act `` allows the Agency to set limited quotas 
that would account for the short-term needs of fishing communities (for 
example, to allow for some fishing of plentiful species despite the 
inevitability of bycatch), even though this would mean that the 
rebuilding period would take longer than it would under a total fishing 
ban.''
    National Standard 8 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 16 U.S.C. 
1851(a)(8), also requires consideration of fishing communities 
consistent with the conservation requirements of the Act: 
``Conservation and management

[[Page 57766]]

measures shall, consistent with the conservation requirements of this 
Act (including the prevention of overfishing and rebuilding of 
overfished stocks), take into account the importance of fishery 
resources to fishing communities in order to (A) provide for the 
sustained participation of such communities, and (B) to the extent 
practicable, minimize adverse economic impacts on such communities.'' 
(1851(a)(8).) Both National Standard 8 and NRDC v. NMFS speak to the 
difficult and often conflicting short-term and long-term socio-economic 
and biological considerations in fisheries management, which require 
sustaining both the long-term productive capacity of marine resources 
and the ability of fishing communities to harvest those resources.
    To address the NRDC v. NMFS ruling, the DEIS took a significant new 
direction in analyzing the socio-economic effects of this action. To 
guide its consideration of the effects of the action on communities, 
the Council included this statement in the draft Amendment 16-4, 
``Fishing Communities need a sustainable fishery that is safe, well 
managed, and profitable, that provides jobs and incomes, that 
contributes to the local social fabric, culture, and image of the 
community, and helps market the community and its services and 
products.'' In its recommendations for overfished species rebuilding 
plans and for 2007-2008 groundfish specifications and management 
measures, the Council was clear that it did not expect fishing 
community needs would be met by those plans and measures, due to 
conservation actions needed for the stocks. Rather, the Council took 
these needs into account as it analyzed different rebuilding plan and 
management measures alternatives. In essence, this means that harvest 
levels and management measures for 2007-2008 are expected to allow 
fishing businesses and communities to operate at a level that will 
provide for the continued existence of those fishing businesses and 
communities and will only allow opportunities for economic growth or 
profit if they are consistent with the rebuilding policies adopted 
under Amendment 16-4. In many instances this means that the harvests of 
healthy and growing stocks will be curtailed because of potential 
effects on rebuilding species.
    Determining how to appropriately take into account the needs of 
fishing communities while preventing short-term disastrous consequences 
from fishery regulations was the most challenging aspect of this 
action, as there is little to no guidance provided by the Court, within 
current NOAA guidelines, or available academic literature. NMFS and its 
partner agencies have been conducting West Coast groundfish stock 
assessments for over 20 years. The agencies have been collecting 
fishery-dependent groundfish data since the early 20th century, and the 
earliest NMFS shelf/slope trawl survey occurred off the West Coast in 
1977. With this history of biological scientific effort, it has been 
standard Council practice to set groundfish harvest levels using stock 
assessments that evaluate and take into account the status and biology 
of those stocks. To address the Court's orders concerning fishing 
communities, NMFS and its partner agencies had to assess fishing 
communities for their groundfish harvest needs, just as biological 
analysts assess the status and biology of the groundfish species.
    The DEIS for this action is intended, in part, to assess: the needs 
of groundfish fishing communities, the dependence of different fishing 
communities on each overfished species, and the vulnerability of 
fishing communities to further near-term reductions in groundfish 
harvest. These analyses were complicated by the fact that different 
gears and fisheries affect various groundfish species to greater or 
lesser degrees. For example, slope rockfish such as POP and 
darkblotched are almost exclusively taken in the trawl fisheries, while 
yelloweye rockfish is primarily taken in recreational and commercial 
hook-and-line fisheries. Most fishing communities have a mix of 
commercial and recreational fishing participation, although community 
dependence on the different sectors varies. Similarly, some fishing 
communities are dependent on commercial trawl fisheries, while others 
have more non-trawl gear fishery participation. To address fishing 
community heterogeneity, the EIS for this action assesses community 
dependency on groundfish, on different sectors of the groundfish 
fishery, and on the fisheries with incidental catch of particular 
overfished species.
    Past EISs for groundfish harvest specifications and management 
measures have primarily addressed the socio-economic environment of 
West Coast groundfish fisheries in terms of groundfish landings by 
weight and ex-vessel revenue over time. This DEIS took a significant 
new direction in analyzing socio-economic effects of this action. 
Chapter 7 and Appendix A of the DEIS describe the socio-economic 
environment, provide economic impact projections of the alternatives, 
and classify fishing communities in terms of their ability to withstand 
short-term negative consequences that could result from declines in 
annual groundfish revenue. Although the ``needs'' of fishing 
communities cannot be quantified because of the lack of data and 
models, available fisheries and economic demographic information 
communities can be used to develop indicators of community engagement 
in fisheries, dependence on groundfish, and community resiliency. These 
indicators can then be combined to classify those communities or 
associated counties that are most vulnerable. A community or county is 
considered ``vulnerable'' and ``most vulnerable'' to changes in 
management measures if in comparison to other communities or counties, 
it is more engaged in fishing, more dependent on groundfish, and least 
resilient to negative socio-economic impacts.
    Appendix A, section A.4., describes the analysis in more detail. It 
describes fishing community engagement in fishing generally and 
dependence on the groundfish fishery particularly, using indicator 
factors such as employment in fishing as a percentage of total 
employment in the community; income from fishing as a percentage of 
total income in the community; number of fishing vessels in the 
community; number of fishing permits in the community; number of 
processors/buyers in the community; and fish landings to the community. 
These factors are then analyzed to determine community resilience to 
changes in groundfish revenue, their ability to weather short-term 
disastrous consequences from landings reductions associated with 
rebuilding overfished species. It is typically assumed that the greater 
socio-economic and cultural diversity and infrastructure an area has, 
the more resilient an area will be if a management regulation 
negatively affects the area. Community resiliency indices included: 
employment in various industries; unemployment levels; income levels; 
resident mobility; resident education, skills and training levels; 
population density (as a proxy for community infrastructure); community 
isolation; and fisheries specific infrastructure. (Much of the 
information was drawn from the NOAA Northwest Fisheries Science 
Center's Community Profiling Project found at: https://
www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/research/divisions/sd/communityprofiles/index.cfm).
    Taking these two major factors into consideration, community 
dependency/engagement and community resiliency to change, Appendix A 
then identified which communities would be most

[[Page 57767]]

vulnerable to changes associated with potential short-term disastrous 
consequences from shortened rebuilding periods. Vulnerable areas were 
defined in the DEIS as those communities that have relatively low 
resilience to economic shifts, and are either highly engaged in or 
highly dependent on groundfish fishing. With regard to engagement in 
commercial fishing in general, the DEIS identifies 29 cities and 16 
counties as vulnerable areas. With regard to dependency on the 
commercial groundfish fishery in particular, the draft EIS identifies 
32 cities and 17 counties as vulnerable areas. The EIS also identified 
10 Washington and Oregon communities as vulnerable areas with regard to 
recreational fishing dependency. California recreational fisheries data 
is aggregated in a way that makes identifying vulnerability to 
recreational fisheries change difficult to identify for particular 
communities. However, analysts were able to identify vulnerability at 
the county level for California recreational fisheries, showing that 
San Luis Obispo through Santa Cruz counties and San Diego through Los 
Angeles counties are most engaged in recreational fishing and dependent 
on the groundfish recreational fishery.
    When the Council took ``into account the needs of fishing 
communities,'' it had before it economic analysis that showed by 
community and fishing sector, trends in commercial harvests and ex-
vessel revenues and in recreational harvests, trips, and expenditures 
by sector and community (or proxy county or port group). These 
variables were translated into estimates of regional, state, and 
community levels of personal income and employment. The economic 
impacts of the various rebuilding alternatives were projected based on 
the bycatch models (used by biologists to illustrate the relationships 
between overfished and healthy groundfish stocks,) which were expanded 
to include the relationship of overfished species to the various 
communities. The Council then reviewed the various alternatives in 
light of the overall and community economic impacts, the above 
discussed analysis of ``vulnerable'' communities, and the alternative 
rebuilding schedules embedded in the alternatives.
    NMFS made its first declaration of overfished species in 1999 
(bocaccio, lingcod, POP,) and the declines in allowable groundfish 
harvest levels and associated revenues are a result of NMFS and Council 
rebuilding policies. On January 19, 2000, under Section 312 of the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) declared a 
commercial resource disaster due to a fisheries resource failure in the 
West Coast groundfish fishery, paving the way for congressional 
provision of disaster relief to affected commercial fishers and their 
communities. This declaration was made on a review of past and 
projected trends in non-whiting commercial groundfish harvests and 
revenues, and the potential underlying causes of these trends. (In this 
and many other long-term analyses, whiting is excluded as it is highly 
variable species that, unlike traditional groundfish fisheries, was 
predominantly a foreign fishery that transitioned to a joint venture 
fishery, and finally a Americanized fishery completely harvested and 
processed by U.S. entities in 1991.) As shown in Figure 2-13 of the 
Draft EIS ``Trends in ex-vessel revenues from the West Coast groundfish 
fishery and projected revenues under the final Council-preferred 
alternative,'' during the late 1980's and until the late 1990's, non-
whiting groundfish fisheries generated annual ex-vessel revenues that 
largely ranged from $90 million to $110 million annually when adjusted 
for inflation. In 1998, there was a sharp decline to $64 million, a 
level that was largely maintained for the next two years. In 2001 and 
2002, revenues sharply fell to $51 million and $42 million, 
respectively. Since 2002, ex-vessel revenues have ranged between $41 
million to $45 million. Implementation of the Council's preferred 
alternative is expected to generate revenues in 2007 and 2008 at levels 
slightly less than the 2005 level of $43 million. (See also Table 7-2c 
``Total domestic shoreside landings and at-sea deliveries-ex-vessel 
revenue... ``of the DEIS)
    In considering the effects of the action on fishing communities, 
the Council was concerned about the effects of inseason fishery 
management on fishing communities. At the start of each biennial 
management cycle, NMFS and the Council set fishery management measures 
that are expected to achieve as much of the healthy species' OYs as 
possible without exceeding allowable harvest levels for co-occurring 
overfished species. These management measures are set using the best 
scientific information available at that time, but new scientific 
information inevitably becomes available during each fishing year. 
Catch data vary in quality and abundance both before and during the 
season, and some of the most constraining rebuilding species are also 
caught in fisheries not managed under the groundfish FMP. Managing a 
coastwide fishery to ensure that OYs of overfished species are not 
exceeded is particularly difficult because many of these OYs are low. 
If new information received during the season reveals that landings are 
occurring at a faster pace than were initially anticipated, management 
action would be needed to keep the harvest of healthy stocks and the 
incidental catch of overfished species at or below their specified OYs. 
If these inseason adjustments to management measures are dramatic, such 
as an early closure of a fishery, then the effects of management 
actions on these communities can be severe.
    To prevent major inseason fluctuations in available harvest, 
Amendment 16-4 and the 2007-2008 harvest levels account for uncertainty 
in order to minimize the potential need for dramatic inseason measures. 
In other words, currently available scientific information is used to 
design management measures that are projected to result in overfished 
species harvest levels that are somewhat lower than their OYs. This 
practice provides a buffer to account for both scientific uncertainty 
and unexpected occurrences and, in general, has helped prevent OYs from 
being exceeded in past management years. Even with these safeguards, 
scientific information that becomes available during the 2007-2008 
period may reveal that previously set management measures need to be 
revised inseason. If that is the case, management measures will be 
appropriately adjusted inseason to keep harvest from exceeding OYs.
Rebuild as Quickly as Possible, Taking into Account the Interactions of 
Overfished Stocks Within the Marine Environment
    In December 2005, NMFS published a final EIS on the designation of 
groundfish EFH and minimization of adverse fishing effects on EFH. 
(See: https://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Groundfish-Halibut/Groundfish-Fishery-
Management/NEPA-Documents/EFH/-Final-EIS.cfm). The final EFH EIS 
primarily focuses on the interactions of groundfish species with their 
physical environment. The DEIS for Amendment 16-4 and the 2007-2008 
groundfish specifications and management measures expand upon the EFH 
EIS's analysis to analyze the interactions of groundfish species with 
each other and with other marine species within the California Current 
ecosystem. In general, the DEIS concludes that the life histories of 
most groundfish species, longer-lived and slower-growing with 
relatively low rates of predation, make the abundance of particular 
groundfish

[[Page 57768]]

species less likely to affect overall productivity within the 
California Current ecosystem. Pacific whiting is an exception, its high 
abundance and productivity, as well as its broad distribution, give it 
influence on ecosystem productivity both as a predator and as prey.
    The abundance of site-loyal overfished rockfish species, cowcod and 
yelloweye rockfish, is likely to affect marine community composition in 
particular geographic areas, but not the ecosystem as a whole. The 
abundance of plankton likely affects the health of overfished 
planktivorous rockfish (POP, darkblotched, canary, and widow,) but 
plankton abundance is primarily determined by physical environmental 
influences that control larval survival and distribution into 
beneficial habitat. The best available scientific information indicates 
that no one rockfish species, even those species with abundant 
population levels, has a population large or productive enough to 
influence overall biological productivity within the California Current 
ecosystem. As a consequence, the rate of rebuilding for a particular 
overfished species is also not expected to influence productivity 
within the California Current ecosystem. Therefore, the Council focused 
its efforts at crafting appropriate rebuilding plans within the Court's 
guidance on the factors discussed earlier in this document the status 
and biology of the stocks, and the needs of fishing communities.
Council Decision-Making Process
    In September and November 2005, the Council adopted most of the new 
groundfish stock assessments needed to support fishery management in 
2007-2008. Yelloweye rockfish was the only species with a stock 
assessment delayed for adoption until March 2006. Based on the adopted 
stock assessments, the Council also adopted initial management 
recommendations for the 2007-2008 fisheries at its November 2005 
meeting. These recommendations included: preliminary ABCs and ranges of 
OYs for all groundfish species, ranges of alternative allocations of 
canary and yelloweye rockfish to the commercial and recreational 
fisheries, and a variety of potential management measures for the 2007-
2008 fisheries. Taking into account the status and biology of 
overfished stocks, the Council adopted preliminary ABCs and ranges of 
overfished species OYs based on: the time to rebuild if fishing were 
eliminated beginning in 2007 (TF=0,) varying probabilities 
of rebuilding by TMIN plus one mean generation time for each 
species, projecting fishing mortality rates associated with 2005 OYs 
forward through time, and applying the current FMP harvest rates to the 
newly assessed biomass levels. Overfished species OY ranges adopted at 
the Council's November 2005 meeting for analysis were: bocaccio, 0-425 
mt; canary rockfish, 0-67 mt; cowcod, 0-11 mt; darkblotched rockfish, 
0-456 mt; POP, 0-741 mt; widow rockfish, 0-1,352 mt; yelloweye 
rockfish, 0-24 mt.
    The Council developed each initial range of overfished species OYs 
using only biological parameters to ask how quickly the stock might 
rebuild at differing levels of potential future harvest. The initial 
ranges were not intended to take into account the needs of fishing 
communities, nor did they account for the interactions of overfished 
stocks with each other. However, these ranges provided a starting point 
for more detailed analysis.
    Over winter 2005-2006, the Council's advisory bodies met to discuss 
and analyze the Council's preliminary harvest level ranges. At its 
March 2006 meeting, the Council adopted a yelloweye rockfish stock 
assessment, finalizing the set of stock assessments for the 2007-2008 
fisheries. At its April 2006 meeting, the Council adopted, for further 
analysis, preferred ABCs for all groundfish species, and preferred OYs 
for the non-overfished species. As discussed below in the section on 
``ABC-Setting Policies,'' ABC-setting for all species is guided by 
harvest policies in the FMP. From the low end of the ranges of 
overfished species OYs that it had adopted in November 2005, the 
Council also adopted suites of ``Preferred Low'' and ``Preferred High'' 
overfished species OYs at its April 2006 meeting. The Preferred Low OY 
suite set out potential OYs as: bocaccio, 40 mt; canary rockfish 32 mt; 
cowcod, 4 mt; darkblotched rockfish, 130 mt; POP, 44 mt; widow 
rockfish, 120 mt; yelloweye rockfish, 12.6 mt. The Preferred High OY 
suite set out potential OYs as: bocaccio, 218 mt; canary rockfish, 44 
mt; cowcod, 8 mt; darkblotched rockfish, 229 mt; POP, 100 mt; widow 
rockfish, 368 mt; yelloweye rockfish, harvest level ramp-down strategy 
(i.e. not an OY based on a constant harvest rate.) In addition to these 
preliminary OY suites, the Council also adopted draft amendatory 
language for Amendment 16-4, which modifies the FMP to include the 
Council's approach for developing rebuilding plans in light of NRDC v. 
NMFS.
    For the April 2006 meeting, NMFS and the Council adopted a new, 
integrated approach in their analyses to develop and evaluate 
overfished species OY alternatives. The Council has traditionally been 
provided with analyses on preferred OYs for each overfished species in 
isolation from other species. For this action, the analyses not only 
considered each overfished species OY in isolation, but also considered 
how different overfished species OYs might affect or constrain other 
overfished species. By adopting a suite of OYs for overfished species 
in April 2006, the Council intended to take a realistic look at minimal 
harvest levels that would rebuild as quickly as possible taking into 
account the status and biology of the stocks and at least allowing for 
some extractive scientific take of overfished stocks. Although the 
Council had not yet fully considered the potential socio-economic 
effects of the different alternatives on fishing communities, it 
determined in April that OYs set at zero would not take into account 
fishing community needs.
    At the April Council meeting, in its April 2006 report to the 
Council, the Council's Groundfish Management Team (GMT) provided the 
Council with issues to consider when developing the suites of OYs for 
overfished species in order to take into account the status and biology 
of the stock, the needs of fishing communities, and the interactions of 
those species within the marine ecosystem (See April 2006 Agenda Item 
F.1.c., Supplemental GMT Report.) The GMT suggested that, in taking 
into account the status and biology of the stock, the Council consider: 
the different depletion rates of each overfished species relative to 
their estimated unfished biomasses; the sensitivity of each overfished 
species' rebuilding trajectory to management decisions that raised or 
lowered that species' OY; and, the need for extractive scientific 
research to continue to occur on overfished and co-occurring groundfish 
species.
    The GMT also suggested that, in taking into account the needs of 
fishing communities, the Council consider: the vulnerability of 
different fishing communities to reductions in available harvest of 
different overfished species; the resilience of different fishing 
communities to changes in community groundfish fishing revenues; the 
effects that recent past harvest levels have had on fishing 
communities; and, the uncertainty in pre-season predictions of bycatch 
rates and the associated need for management flexibility to address 
that uncertainty without either allowing OYs to be exceeded or causing 
disastrous immediate consequences for groundfish fishing communities. 
Finally, the GMT suggested that the Council consider interactions of

[[Page 57769]]

overfished species within the marine ecosystem by integrating their 
considerations of the status and biology of overfished stocks with 
their considerations of the needs of fishing communities by 
prioritizing greater protection for the overfished species with 
rebuilding trajectories most sensitive to changes in OY and to the most 
vulnerable fishing communities by allowing relatively more incidental 
take of the less sensitive overfished species. These GMT 
recommendations, and the advice that the Council received from its 
other advisory bodies and the public, informed how the Council 
developed its overfished species OY alternatives at its April 2006 
meeting.
    In taking the status and biology of the stocks into account via its 
April preferred alternatives, the Council looked at the sensitivity of 
each overfished species' rebuilding trajectory to future changes in OY. 
Rebuilding times were compared with each other in terms of how far each 
alternative would extend a species' rebuilding period beyond 
TF=0, the time at which rebuilding would be estimated to 
occur were fishing mortality eliminated for that species beginning in 
2007. The effects of the alternatives on rebuilding periods were 
compared to those under a TF=0 scenario, rather than to 
those under a TMIN scenario. TMIN is defined as 
the shortest time to rebuild if all fishing were eliminated from the 
start of a species' rebuilding period. For West Coast groundfish 
species with existing rebuilding plans, TMIN is used as a 
reference point to illustrate what might have been possible had all 
fishing been eliminated from the start of the rebuilding period. 
Amendment 16-4 does not set new rebuilding period start dates for 
overfished species; instead, it revises the rebuilding trajectories and 
target dates that were set in place by Amendments 16-2 and 16-3, per 
the requirements of NRDC v. NMFS. Because the rebuilding period start 
dates remain in place, comparing rebuilding periods to those that would 
have occurred under TMIN scenarios would have required 
making an untrue assumption that no fishing mortality had occurred for 
overfished species since the start of the rebuilding periods. For this 
reason, comparing rebuilding periods to those that would have occurred 
under the TF=0 provides a more useful estimate of what is 
rebuilding ``as soon as possible.''
    Some of the overfished stocks are more productive than others, 
meaning that they are more likely to rebuild to BMSY at 
faster rates. Rebuilding times for the less productive species are more 
sensitive to changes in OY levels. For example, a 130-mt darkblotched 
rockfish OY is expected to increase the darkblotched rebuilding period 
by 4 months beyond TF=0, while a 229-mt OY is expected to 
increase that period by 7 months beyond TF=0. Conversely, a 
4-mt cowcod OY is expected to increase the cowcod rebuilding period by 
4 years beyond TF=0, while an 8 mt OY is expected to 
increase that period by 8 years beyond TF=0. Species with 
rebuilding times that are most sensitive to changes in OYs are 
yelloweye rockfish, and cowcod. These low productivity stocks would 
take longer to rebuild than the higher productivity stocks, even if 
fishing mortality were eliminated. The more productive and less 
sensitive stocks are darkblotched, POP, and widow rockfish. The 
productivity and sensitivity of bocaccio and canary rockfish is 
intermediate to these two groups.
    To properly take overfished species productivity into account, the 
Council also had to make initial recommendations on management measures 
to best match management programs to the species in need of more or 
less conservative management. In recent years, groundfish management 
measures have been designed to reduce effort on overfished stocks with 
low productivity and redirect effort on healthy stocks, with somewhat 
higher incidental take of those overfished species with higher 
productivity. Trawl fishing effort is prohibited on the continental 
shelf, constrained in nearshore waters, and focused on continental 
slope waters, where the most productive overfished species tend to 
occur. The less productive species tend to occur on the shelf, with 
cowcod and yelloweye being caught primarily by hook-and-line gear, and 
canary and bocaccio being caught in a broad range of fisheries. Thus, 
at its April 2006 meeting, the Council recommended that suites of 
management measures be developed for the Preferred High and Low OY 
alternatives that would maintain the philosophy of constraining fishing 
opportunities where trawlers might incidentally catch the most 
sensitive species.
    At its June 2006 meeting, the Council considered three management 
alternatives that packaged overfished species OYs with management 
measures intended to constrain fishing to those OYs. To ensure adequate 
analysis of a no-fishing baseline, the Council also considered F=0 
scenarios, which represent each species' shortest time to rebuild in 
the absence of fishing mortality, starting in 2007. Alternative 1, 
associated with the Preferred Low OY suite, was more restrictive than 
status quo and provided the shortest rebuilding times with modest 
fishing mortality. Under Alternative 1, rebuilding was extended less 
than five years from the times associated with F=0 for bocaccio, 
cowcod, darkbloched rockfish, POP, and widow rockfish. Canary and 
yelloweye rockfish rebuilding periods would have been extended by an 
estimated 7 and 35 years, respectively, under Alternative 1. 
Alternative 2 was intermediate to Alternatives 1 and 3, and resulted in 
overfished species mortality similar to current management measures. 
Alternative 3, the Preferred High OY, allowed for greater harvest and 
resulted in longer rebuilding periods than the other alternatives by 
extending the rebuilding time for bocaccio, darkblotched rockfish, POP 
and widow rockfish rebuilding periods by five years or less from 
TF=0, and extending the cowcod, canary and yelloweye 
rockfish rebuilding periods by an estimated 8, 10 and 36 years, 
respectively, from TF=0.
    At the June Council meeting, in its June 2006 report to the 
Council, the GMT again provided the Council with issues to consider 
when making its final decision on preferred overfished species OYs in 
order to take into account the status and biology of the stock, the 
needs of fishing communities, and the interactions of those species 
within the marine ecosystem (See June 2006 Agenda Item F.2.c., 
Supplemental GMT Report.) To take into account the status and biology 
of overfished stocks, the GMT reiterated its April advice that the 
Council consider the potential rebuilding trajectories of each 
overfished species and the effects of varying harvest rates on those 
trajectories, and the need for extractive scientific research to 
continue into the future. The GMT provided the Council with a 
comparison of each overfished species' rebuilding trajectory under the 
different harvest scenarios and under the TF=0 scenario. 
Based on that comparison, the GMT reminded the Council that cowcod and 
yelloweye are the species with rebuilding trajectories most sensitive 
to changes in OYs, and that bocaccio and canary are moderately 
sensitive to changes in OY. The GMT identified widow rockfish, 
darkblotched rockfish and POP as having rebuilding trajectories least 
sensitive to changes in OY, and most subject to what the GMT called the 
``rebuilding paradox.'' The rebuilding paradox occurs as a stock's size 
gets closer to its rebuilt level, BMSY. Although the 
fisheries must continue to avoid a rebuilding stock throughout its 
rebuilding period, rebuilding stocks that are close to BMSY 
are so abundant that

[[Page 57770]]

they become increasingly difficult to avoid.
    In its June report, the GMT also provided the Council with issues 
to consider in taking into account the needs of fishing communities. In 
particular, the GMT discussed the effects of the different action 
alternatives and the TF=0 alternative in terms of: short 
term economic impacts when compared to status quo, short term economic 
impacts compared to historic economic impacts, short term economic 
impacts compared to the 2000 disaster declaration by the Secretary, and 
short term economic impacts of each action alternatives when compared 
to one another. The GMT noted that, under the status quo (2005-2006) 
fishery, groundfish revenues are lower than revenues generated in 2000, 
the year of the disaster declaration. In 2000, 2001, and 2002 
groundfish ex-vessel revenues were approximately $62 million, $52 
million, and $43 million respectively. Recreational angler trips 
numbered an estimated 1,218,000 in 2000, 927,000 in 2001, and 843,000 
in 2002. The GMT reported that each of the action alternatives under 
Council consideration would result in ex-vessel revenue, recreational 
angler trips, and income that would be lower than in 2000, when the 
disaster declaration was made. Finally, the GMT expressed its concern 
with the lack of management flexibility under the lowest OYs in the 
action alternatives, anticipating that implementing the lowest OYs 
would eliminate management flexibility, potentially resulting in more 
radical inseason management shifts and potentially disastrous 
consequences for fishing communities.
    When making its recommendations for a preferred suite of rebuilding 
OYs, the Council considered the differences in the biology of the 
different overfished rockfish stocks and varying rebuilding schedules. 
The depletion rates of each overfished species and the sensitivity of 
each species to changes in the management regime were considered. The 
OY alternatives considered by the Council included allowances for 
research catch, in order to ensure that future information could be 
gathered to assess the status and biology of these and other fish 
stocks.
    In addition, the Council considered the needs of the fishing 
communities within the framework suggested by its GMT, which looked at 
the short term economic consequences of the different alternatives and 
whether those alternatives were likely to be immediately disastrous for 
fishing communities. The Council also considered the uncertainty 
inherent in inseason groundfish fisheries management. See inseason 
discussion, above, under ``Rebuild as Quickly as Possible, Taking Into 
Account the Needs of Fishing Communities.'' For example, the Preferred 
Low OY alternative would have required a variety of fisheries to be 
either severely constrained or closed by January 1, 2007. In addition, 
this alternative had little flexibility to respond to management 
uncertainty and would likely result in inseason fishery closures in 
response to fishery information received inseason.
    In summary, in making its final recommendations for rebuilding OYs 
in 2007-2008, the Council took into account the status and biology of 
the stocks by looking for the shortest possible rebuilding periods 
within a package of management measures that provided the greatest 
protection for the most sensitive and lowest productivity species. The 
Council took the needs of fishing communities into account by providing 
fishing opportunities where such opportunities would have a minimal 
effect on rebuilding periods for stocks with higher productivity, and 
by recommending restrictive management measures focused on stocks with 
the lowest productivity levels. The Council adopted the following 
optimum yields (OYs) for overfished species in 2007-2008: bocaccio 
rockfish 218 mt; canary rockfish 44 mt; cowcod 4 mt; darkblotched 
rockfish 290 mt for 2007 and 330 mt for 2008; Pacific ocean perch 150 
mt; widow rockfish 368 mt; and a harvest rate ramp-down strategy for 
yelloweye rockfish with a 23 mt OY in 2007 and a 20 mt OY in 2008. 
These recommended OYs allow for extractive scientific research in 2007 
and 2008. In order to account for uncertainty in inseason management, 
the Council's recommended management measures are projected to result 
in total catch levels that are lower than the overfished species OYs. 
As discussed below, the recommended overfished species OYs are 
estimated to extend rebuilding periods beyond TF=0 by: for 
bocaccio, 5 years; for canary rockfish, 10 years; for cowcod, 4 years; 
for darkblotched rockfish, 1 year; for POP, 2 years; for widow 
rockfish, 2 years; and for yelloweye rockfish, 38 years. These Council-
adopted OYs and the associated harvest rates and rebuilding 
trajectories would be implemented via this action, which implements 
both the 2007-2008 groundfish harvest specifications and management 
measures and Amendment 16-4. Amendment 16-4 revises the FMP with new 
overfished species rebuilding parameters at Section 4.5.
ABC-setting Policies
    The Council develops annual estimates of the ABC (acceptable 
biological catch) for major groundfish stocks. The ABC is a 
biologically based estimate of the amount of fish that may be harvested 
from the fishery each year without jeopardizing the resource. The ABC 
may be modified with precautionary adjustments to account for 
uncertainty. A stock's OY is its target harvest level, and is usually 
lowered from its ABC; OY setting policies are explained in a later 
section of this preamble. When setting the 2007 and 2008 ABCs, the 
Council maintained a policy of using a default harvest rate as a proxy 
for the fishing mortality rate that is expected to achieve the maximum 
sustainable yield (FMSY). The ABCs for groundfish species or 
species groups are derived by multiplying the harvest rate proxy by the 
current estimated biomass. In 2007 and 2008, the following default 
harvest rate proxies, based on the Council's Scientific and Statistical 
Committee (SSC) recommendations, were used: F40% for 
flatfish and Pacific whiting, F50% for rockfish (including 
thornyheads), and F45% for other groundfish such as 
sablefish and lingcod.
    A harvest rate of F40% can be explained as that which 
reduces spawning potential per female to 40 percent of what it would 
have been under natural conditions (if there were no mortality due to 
fishing), and is therefore a more aggressive harvest rate than 
F45% or F50%. The FMP allows default harvest rate 
proxies to be modified as scientific knowledge improves for a 
particular species. A fishing mortality or harvest rate can vary, 
depending on the productivity of a particular species. For fast growing 
species (those with individuals that mature quickly and produce many 
young that survive to an age where they are caught in the fishery,) a 
higher fishing mortality rate may be used, such as F40%. 
Fishing mortality rate policies must account for several complicating 
factors, including the capacity of mature individuals to produce young 
over time and the optimal stock size necessary for the highest level of 
productivity within that stock.
    For some groundfish species, there is little or no detailed 
biological data available on which to base ABCs, and therefore only 
rudimentary stock assessments have been prepared. For other species, no 
stock assessments have been prepared and the ABC levels were 
established on the basis of historical landings. Since 2000, the 
Council has

[[Page 57771]]

applied a more precautionary ABC policy in which the ABCs are first 
calculated using the rudimentary stock assessments or historic catch 
levels, and then those ABCs are reduced by 25 percent as a 
precautionary measure.
2007 and 2008 ABCs For All Groundfish Species
    In 2004, NMFS implemented regulations setting a biennial management 
cycle for groundfish harvest specifications and management measures. 
Biennial specification were first established for the 2005 and 2006 
management cycle. During the first year in a biennial cycle, new stock 
assessments are prepared and the results of the new assessments are 
reviewed and adopted for use in a future management cycle. In some 
cases, the Council may identify the need to refine a stock assessment, 
and the assessment may not be adopted until later in the first year or 
early in the second year of the biennial cycle.
    A stock assessment is an evaluation of the biological condition of 
a stock or stock complex and the impacts of fishing on that stock or 
stock complex. Stock assessments prepared for Pacific Coast groundfish 
species include current estimates of the abundance, changes in 
abundance over time, depletion levels relative to an unfished state, 
fishing mortality estimates, mortality estimates from other causes, and 
different harvest forecasts including the harvestable amount and the 
likely effect on the stock abundance. In addition, Pacific Coast 
groundfish stock assessments identify areas of uncertainty and modeling 
difficulties.
    To estimate stock abundance and population trends, each stock 
assessment relies on various types and sources of information, both 
fishery-dependent and fishery-independent. For example, basic fishery 
dependent data for stock assessments includes the amount of fish caught 
and the ratio of fish caught to the time spent fishing (catch per unit 
of effort (CPUE)). In addition to fishery dependent data, fishery 
independent data for stock assessments are collected during scientific 
research surveys. Individual sizes of fish and their biological 
characteristics (e.g., age, maturity, sex) can be collected from both 
fishery dependent and independent sources. When data are lacking for a 
particular species, it can result in uncertainty and modeling 
difficulties for the stock assessment scientists.
    West Coast groundfish stock assessments are developed and evaluated 
through a thorough review process. Stock assessments for each species 
are developed in draft by a NMFS or state agency fishery biologist, or 
team of biologists. Each stock assessment is then reviewed by a Stock 
Assessment Review (STAR) Panel. STAR panel membership for each species 
includes NMFS stock assessment scientists other than the scientist(s) 
who assessed the species in question, scientists from state agencies 
and/or academic institutions, members of the Council's SSC, and 
independent peer reviewers chosen from the Center for Independent 
Experts (See: https://www.rsmas.miami.edu/groups/cie/.) Representatives 
from the Council's GMT and Groundfish Advisory Panel (GAP) also 
participate in the STAR process. STAR panels review each stock 
assessment and provide comments back to the stock assessment team, 
usually suggesting changes or refinements to modeling, methods, or 
datasets used. The stock assessment team then completes the next draft 
of the assessment and submits it to the SSC for review. Once it has 
completed its review of the stock assessments, the SSC reports to the 
Council on the suitability of each assessment for use in managing the 
assessed stock.
    In preparation for setting new ABC values for 2007 and 2008, stock 
assessment scientists prepared 23 stock assessments on 22 groundfish 
stocks. Full stock assessments, those that not only update available 
biological and fishery information, but also consider the 
appropriateness of the assessment model and that revise the model as 
necessary, were prepared for the following species: canary rockfish, 
cowcod, widow rockfish, yelloweye rockfish, lingcod, English sole, 
petrale sole, starry flounder, darkblotched rockfish, blackgill 
rockfish, shortspine thornyhead, longspine thornyhead, sablefish, Dover 
sole, cabezon, California scorponfish, gopher rockfish and kelp 
greenling. Stock assessment updates, those that run new data through an 
existing model without changing the model, were prepared for: bocaccio, 
POP, and yellowtail rockfish. Vermilion rockfish was assessed for the 
first time in 2005. However, there were significant concerns about the 
reliability of the vermilion rockfish assessment and the Council did 
not accept the assessment for use in management. Instead, vermilion 
rockfish remains within the minor rockfish complex, managed with 
harvest levels based on historic harvests, with precautionary 
reductions for species with little or no scientific information.
    At its September and November 2005 meetings, the Council adopted 
most of the 2005 groundfish stock assessments that were used to derive 
the 2007-2008 harvest specifications and management measures. Council 
adoption of stock assessments follows the rigorous Stock Assessment 
Review panel (STAR) process, which culminates in SSC review of the 
stock assessments and STAR panel reviews of those assessments. Each new 
stock assessment included a base model as well as alternative states of 
nature that assume higher or lower stock productivity than the base 
model. The SSC makes recommendations to the Council on the 
appropriateness of using the different stock assessments for 
management, after which the Council considers adoption of the stock 
assessments, use of the stock assessment for the rebuilding 
assessments, and recommends ABCs derived from the base model runs of 
those stock assessments.
    Species that had ABCs in 2005 and 2006 continue to have ABCs in 
2007 and 2008. However, because of a lack of data, many groundfish 
species are grouped into species complexes and managed as a group with 
an ABC for the complex. In 2005, several stocks received more 
quantitative stock assessments and are being removed from species 
complexes. New species-specific ABC values for the 2007 and 2008 
management cycle would be implemented by this action for: Starry 
Flounder and English sole, which are being removed from the ``other 
flatfish'' complex; California scorpionfish in the Conception area, 
which is being removed from the ``other fish'' complex; and gopher 
rockfish south of 40[deg]10' N. lat., which is being removed from the 
``other rockfish'' complex and added to the ``remaining minor 
rockfish'' complex. Although a stock assessment was prepared for kelp 
greenling in waters off California and Oregon, the Council only adopted 
the Oregon portion of the assessment because the stock assessment 
review process had concluded that data available for and modeling of 
the California kelp greenling sub-stock were inadequate to provide 
management advice for this species. A species specific ABC is not being 
established for 2007 and 2008, and kelp greenling will remain within 
the other fish complex.
    For species that did not have new stock assessments prepared for 
the 2007 and 2008 cycle, the Council considered a single ABC derived 
from the base model of the most recent stock assessment or continued to 
use the results of rudimentary stock assessments or historical landings 
data. Species or species complexes without new stock assessments 
include: Pacific cod, arrowtooth flounder, shortbelly

[[Page 57772]]

rockfish, chilipepper rockfish, splitnose rockfish, black rockfish, 
minor rockfish, bank rockfish, blackgill rockfish, other flatfish, 
other rockfish, and other fish. Species that are not overfished and 
which had new stock assessments or stock assessment updates prepared 
and adopted for use in setting harvest specifications by the Council 
include: sablefish, Cabezon (California), California Scorpionfish, 
Dover sole, English sole, petrale sole, starry flounder, yellowtail 
rockfish, shortspine thornyhead, longspine thornyhead, kelp greenling 
(Oregon), and blackgill rockfish. Specific information on the ABC 
values for the species without new stock assessments, and for those 
species that are not overfished and which have new stock assessments or 
assessment updates, are provided in the footnotes to Table 1a. and 
Table 2a.
    As mentioned above, petrale sole had a new stock assessment in 
2005. When it adopted ABCs for all groundfish species, the Council 
recommended a 2007 petrale sole ABC of 2,917 mt, based on a table of 
all species' ABCs provided by the Council's GMT. Following the 
Council's June 2006 meeting, NMFS discovered that the 2,917 mt 2007 
petrale sole ABC the Council had adopted had been incorrectly 
calculated from the stock assessment. The Council should have specified 
an ABC of 3,025 mt for 2007, which is the sum of the northern ABC of 
1,397 mt and the southern ABC of 1,628 mt. Instead, the 2007 ABC of 
2,917 mt chosen by the Council in June 2006 was incorrectly calculated 
by summing the stock's northern OY of 1,289 mt and the southern ABC of 
1,628 mt. The 2008 petrale sole ABC of 2,919 mt had been correctly 
calculated prior to Council adoption. This action proposes a 2007 
petrale sole ABC of 3,025 in Table 1a. The Council plans to review this 
issue at its September 11-15, 2006 meeting in Foster City, California, 
to ensure that this correction is made in the Council forum. In the 
preamble to the final rule for this action, NMFS will review the 
Council's September 2006 recommendation on the petrale sole and 
finalize the appropriate ABC based on the stock assessment, the 
Council's deliberations, and any comments received from the public.
    A new stock assessment was prepared for lingcod in 2005. The 2005 
lingcod stock assessment estimates that the coastwide lingcod stock in 
2005 is at 64 percent of its unfished biomass level, with the northern 
component of the stock (north of Cape Mendocino, CA) at 87 percent of 
its unfished biomass level and the southern component of the stock at 
27 percent of its unfished biomass level. Lingcod is managed as a 
single coastwide stock; therefore, the stock is considered to be 
rebuilt because the coastwide biomass is above the MSY level, 40 
percent of the stock's unfished biomass. The SSC endorsed the 2005 
lingcod stock assessment as the best available science, and the Council 
adopted the assessment for use in establishing the 2007 and 2008 
management measures. Based on the reco