Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; Fisheries Off West Coast States; Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; 2011-2012 Biennial Specifications and Management Measures; Amendment 16-5; and Amendment 23, 67810-67896 [2010-26941]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 212 (Wednesday, November 3, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 67810-67896]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-26941]



[[Page 67809]]

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

Part II





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; 2011-2012 Biennial Specifications and 
Management Measures; Amendment 16-5; and Amendment 23; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 75 , No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2010 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 67810]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 660

[Docket No. 100804324-0489-01]
RIN 0648-BA01


Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; Fisheries Off West Coast States; 
Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; 2011-2012 Biennial Specifications and 
Management Measures; Amendment 16-5; and Amendment 23

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

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: This proposed action would establish the 2011-2012 harvest 
specifications and management measures for groundfish taken in the U.S. 
exclusive economic zone (EEZ) off the coasts of Washington, Oregon, and 
California consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation 
and Management Act and the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management 
Plan (PCGFMP). This action revises the collection of management 
measures in the groundfish fishery regulations that are intended to 
keep the total catch of each groundfish species or species complex 
within the harvest specifications. This action also includes 
regulations to implement Amendments 16-5 and 23 to the PCGFMP. 
Amendment 16-5 would revise existing rebuilding plans, create a new 
rebuilding plan for Petrale sole, which was declared overfished on 
February 9, 2010, and revise status determination criteria and a 
harvest control rule for flatfish. This action is consistent with and 
partially implements Amendment 23 to the PCGFMP. Amendment 23 would 
make the PCGFMP consistent with the revised National Standard 1 
Guidelines (74 FR 3178, January 16, 2009).

DATES: Comments must be received no later than 5 p.m., local time on 
December 3, 2010.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by the RIN number 0648-
BA01, by any of the following methods:
     Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public 
comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov.
     Fax: 206-526-6736, Attn: Becky Renko.
     Mail: William Stelle, Administrator, Northwest Region, 
NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way, NE., Seattle, WA 98115-0070, Attn: Becky 
Renko.
    Instructions: All comments received are a part of the public record 
and will generally be posted to https://www.regulations.gov without 
change. All personal identifying information (for example, name, 
address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly 
accessible. Do not submit confidential business information, or 
otherwise sensitive or protected information.
    National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) will accept anonymous 
comments (enter N/A in the required fields if you wish to remain 
anonymous). Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in 
Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only.
    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: Becky Renko, phone: 206-526-6110, fax: 
206-526-6736, or e-mail: becky.renko@noaa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Electronic Access

    This rule is accessible via the Internet at the Office of the 
Federal Register Web site at https://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/aces140.html. Background information and documents are available at the 
NMFS Northwest Region Web site at https://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Groundfish-Halibut/Groundfish-Fishery-Management/index.cfm and at the Council's 
Web site at https://www.pcouncil.org.

Background

    The Pacific Coast Groundfish fishery is managed under the PCGFMP. 
The PCGFMP was prepared by the Council, approved on July 30, 1984, and 
was implemented under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 
Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). Regulations at 
50 CFR part 660, subparts C through G, implement the provisions of the 
PCGFMP.
    The amount of each Pacific Coast groundfish species or species 
complex that is available for harvest in a specific year is referred to 
as a harvest specification. The PCGFMP requires the harvest 
specifications and management measures for groundfish to be set at 
least biennially. This proposed rule, which proposes the Council's 
preferred alternative, would set 2011-2012 harvest specifications and 
management measures for the 90-plus groundfish species or species 
complexes managed under the PCGFMP. The groundfish fishery regulations 
include a collection of management measures intended to keep the total 
catch of each groundfish species or species complex within the harvest 
specifications. The management measures would be revised by this 
action.
    The following groundfish species have been declared as overfished 
and are currently being managed under rebuilding plans: Bocaccio south 
of 40[deg]10' north latitude; canary rockfish; cowcod south of 
40[deg]10' north latitude; darkblotched rockfish, Pacific Ocean Perch 
(POP), widow rockfish, and yelloweye rockfish. This action also updates 
the existing overfished species rebuilding plans.
    Petrale sole was declared overfished on February 9, 2010. The 
proposed action adds a new rebuilding plan for petrale sole under 
Amendment 16-5 to the PCGFMP. In addition, also under Amendment 16-5, 
the proposed action modifies status determination criteria in the 
PCGFMP for flatfish and adds to the PCGFMP a new precautionary harvest 
control rule for flatfish.
    On January 16, 2009, NMFS adopted revisions to its guidelines 
implementing Magnuson-Stevens Act National Standard 1 (74 FR 3178) to 
prevent and end overfishing and rebuild fisheries. The proposed action 
would implement a new fishery specification framework under Amendment 
23 to the PCGFMP including: Overfishing limits (OFLs), an acceptable 
biological catch (ABC) that incorporates a scientific uncertainty 
buffer in specifications, annual catch limits (ACLs), and annual catch 
targets (ACTs). These new specifications are designed to better account 
for scientific and management uncertainty and to prevent overfishing. 
Amendment 23 also removes dusky and dwarf-red rockfish from the list of 
species in the groundfish fisheries.
    On April 29, 2010, the District Court for the Northern District of 
California ruled that the 2009-2010 harvest specifications for three 
overfished species (cowcod, darkblotched, and yelloweye) violated the 
MSA and ordered that NMFS apply its 2008 harvest levels for these 
species in 2010. (Natural Resources Defense Council v.

[[Page 67811]]

Locke (N.D. Cal., 2010) here after refered to as NRDC v. Locke.) On 
July 8, 2010, NMFS revised the harvest specifications for yelloweye 
rockfish, cowcod and darkbloched rockfish to be consistent with the 
court order (75 FR 38030). The court further ordered NMFS to publish 
new specifications within one year of its ruling.
    This proposed rule is based on the Council's final decisions on the 
2011 and 2012 biennial specifications and management measures, and on 
Amendment 23 and Amendment 16-5 at its June 2010 meeting. The 
supporting rationale described in this proposed rule is based on the 
DEIS prepared by the Council and other documents developed as part of 
the Council's decision process. NMFS has not made its final 
determination regarding its approval of the two amendments or whether 
the proposed specifications are consistent with the PCGFMP, the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, including the April 29, 
2010 Court Order on Remedy in NRDC v. Locke.

Specification and Management Measure Development Process

    The process for setting the 2011 and 2012 biennial harvest 
specifications began in 2009 with the preparation of stock assessments. 
A stock assessment is the scientific and statistical process where the 
status of a fish population or subpopulation (stock) is assessed in 
terms of population size, reproductive status, fishing mortality, and 
sustainability. In the terms of the PCGFMP, stock assessments generally 
provide: (1) An estimate of the current biomass (reproductive 
potential); (2) an FMSY or proxy (a default harvest rate for 
the fishing mortality rate that is expected to achieve the maximum 
sustainable yield), translated into exploitation rate; (3) an estimate 
of the biomass that produces the maximum sustainable yield 
(BMSY); and, (4) a precision estimate (e.g., confidence 
interval) for current biomass estimate. Each stock assessment is 
prepared by a stock assessment scientist then reviewed by the Council's 
stock assessment review panel (STAR--The STAR panel is a key part of a 
process designed to review the technical merits of stock assessments 
and is responsible for determining if a stock assessment document is 
sufficiently complete) and the Council's Scientific and Statistical 
Committee (SSC).
    In each biennial period, the Council and NMFS consider a number of 
full stock assessments, where each stock assessment model is critically 
examined and possibly updated. They also use stock assessment updates 
to update an existing assessment by incorporating the most recent data. 
A stock assessment update must carry forward the fundamental structure 
from the model that was previously reviewed and endorsed by a STAR 
panel. Stock assessment updates are prepared for stocks that have been 
determined to have a stable model approach to data analysis and 
modeling.
    For overfished stocks a rebuilding analysis is also prepared. The 
rebuilding analysis is used to project the status of the overfished 
resource into the future under a variety of alternative harvest 
strategies to determine the probability of recovering to 
BMSY (or its proxy) within a specified time-frame. Minimum 
requirements for rebuilding analyses for routine situations have been 
established by the SSC and are applied with computer package developed 
by Dr Andr[eacute] Punt (University of Washington). The SSC encourages 
analysts to explore alternative calculations and projections that may 
more accurately capture uncertainties in stock rebuilding and which may 
better represent stock-specific concerns. In the event of a discrepancy 
between the calculations resulting from Dr Andr[eacute] Punt's program, 
the SSC groundfish subcommittee will review the issue and recommend 
which results to use. The SSC also encourages explicit consideration of 
uncertainty in projections of stock rebuilding, including comparisons 
of alternative states of nature using decision tables to quantify the 
impact of model uncertainty. The rebuilding analyses include: An 
estimation of B0 (the unfished biomass and hence 
BMSY or its proxy); the selection of a method to generate 
future recruitment; the specification of the mean generation time; a 
calculation of the minimum possible rebuilding time (TMIN); 
and, the identification and analysis of alternative harvest strategies 
and rebuilding times.
    At the Council's June, September and November 2009 meetings, new 
stock assessments, stock assessment updates and rebuilding analyses 
were made available to the Council as was an SSC report on whether the 
SSC considered the documents to be the ``best available science'' 
suitable for use in setting biennial harvest specifications. The 
Council considered the information brought forward from its advisory 
bodies and public comment before approving the new stock assessments, 
stock assessment updates and rebuilding analyses for setting the 2011 
and 2012 biennial harvest specifications.
    The biennial harvest specifications and management measures are 
developed over the course of three Council meetings. At its November 
2009 meeting the Council recommended an initial range of harvest 
specifications and management measures based on the new stock 
assessments, new rebuilding analyses, recommendations of its advisory 
bodies, and public comment. Using the Council's initial harvest 
specifications and management measure recommendations, the Council's 
advisory bodies developed initial alternatives for a draft 
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
    A holistic or integrated approach was taken in the development of 
alternatives in the Draft EIS for this action. The newly adopted 
rebuilding analyses were used to develop a range of alternatives driven 
by the annual catch limits (ACLs) for overfished species. The 
interrelated nature of the Pacific Coast groundfish stocks makes the 
consideration of holistic alternatives necessary. The degree of 
interaction between overfished species and other stocks is such that 
``rebuilding as quickly as possible while taking into account the needs 
of fishing communities'' is not possible based solely on a species-by 
species approach.
    At its April 2010, meeting, the Council made recommendations on 
overfishing limits (OFLs) for all groundfish stocks and stock 
complexes. At this same meeting, the Council made recommendations on 
preferred 2011 and 2012 acceptable biological catches (ABCs) that 
incorporate scientific uncertainty buffers for all groundfish stocks 
and stock complexes, and preferred 2011 and 2012 ACLs for all non-
overfished groundfish stocks and stock complexes. A preliminary 
analysis of the holistic alternatives relative to the biological and 
socio-economic environment and consistent with the requirements of NEPA 
was further developed and made available to the public, the Council, 
and the Council's advisory bodies prior to the June 2010 meeting. 
Additional information that further refined the analysis was provided 
at the Council's June meeting. At its June 2010 meeting, the Council 
considered the holistic alternatives, the analysis, reports provides by 
its advisory bodies and public comment before making final 
recommendations on the groundfish harvest specifications, rebuilding 
plan revisions for overfished groundfish species, and groundfish 
fishery management measures.
    The alternative actions considered by the Council were consistent 
with the harvest specification framework proposed under Amendment 23 to 
the PCGFMP, which contemplates setting an OFL, an ABC that incorporates 
a scientific uncertainty buffer, and an ACL for each groundfish stock 
and stock

[[Page 67812]]

complex. A final decision regarding approval of Amendment 23 is 
expected by January 1, 2011. The alternative actions considered by the 
Council were also consistent with Amendments 20 and 21 to the PCGFMP 
which were approved August 9, 2010 and which are expected to be fully 
implemented by January 1, 2011. The components of these PCGFMP 
amendments and the relationship of each to the biennial harvest 
specifications are further discussed below.

Decision Process

    To best inform the decision process, an analysis was prepared that 
contrasted the Council's preliminary preferred alternative against the 
other alternatives relative to the Council's stated goals and 
objectives for rebuilding. The Council's goals and objectives for 
rebuilding plans are identified in section 4.5.3.1 of the PCGFMP: ``The 
overall goals of rebuilding programs are to (1) achieve the population 
size and structure that will support the maximum sustainable yield 
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.'' These overall goals are derived from and consistent with the 
requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The first goal mirrors 
Magnuson-Stevens Act National Standard 1 and the requirements for 
rebuilding overfished stocks found at Magnuson-Stevens Act section 
304(e)(4)(A). The second goal, to minimize adverse impacts to fishing 
communities is required by Magnuson-Stevens Act National Standard 8. 
The third goal is required by Magnuson-Stevens Act section 
304(e)(4)(B). The fourth and fifth goals represent additional policy 
preferences of the Council that recognize the importance of habitat 
protection to the rebuilding of some fish stocks and the desire for 
public outreach and education on the complexities--biological, 
economic, and social issue--involved with rebuilding overfished stocks.
    Each rebuilding analysis is based on parameters from the stock 
assessment and projects the future status of the stock based on the 
rebuilding alternatives being considered by the Council using Monte 
Carlo simulation techniques. There is considerable scientific 
uncertainty involved with these projections, which the rebuilding 
analysis expresses as the probability of the stock being rebuilt in any 
given year. The rebuilding analysis estimates the shortest time to 
rebuild, referred to as TMIN. TMIN is the time it 
takes to rebuild the stock, with a 50 percent probability, if all 
fishing caused mortality is ceased. The Council's policy for rebuilding 
is established with a TTARGET. TTARGET is the 
year in which the Council expects the stock to rebuild with at least a 
50 percent probability under the chosen rebuilding strategy. A 
particular TTARGET is determined by the productivity of the 
stock, its current status (a.k.a, ``status and biology''), and the 
allowable harvest associated with a particular rebuilding strategy. The 
target abundance for rebuilding is the biomass level that produces 
maximum sustainable yield (BMSY).
    Section 304(e)(4) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act provides: That any 
fishery management plan, plan amendment, or proposed regulations for 
rebuilding an overfished fishery shall--``(A) specify a time period for 
rebuilding the fishery that shall--(i) 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; and (ii) not exceed 10 years, except in cases where the 
biology of the stock of fish, other environmental conditions, or 
management measures under an international agreement in which the 
United States participates dictates otherwise''.
    Because so many of the groundfish stocks are intermixed in 
different proportions, making adjustments to protect one stock may 
increase the impacts on other stocks. The Council's integrated 
rebuilding strategy, when taking into account the biology of the stocks 
and the needs of the fishing communities, centers on pushing fishing 
effort off of the more sensitive rebuilding species and on to the less 
sensitive rebuilding species (i.e., off of species with longer 
rebuilding times and onto species able to rebuild more quickly). This 
concept was adopted in Amendment 16-4 to the PCGFMP as the best way of 
taking into account the biology of the stocks and the needs of fishing 
communities in a holistic fashion that simultaneously considers all 
rebuilding species and groundfish sectors.
    Section 4.5.3.2 of the PCGFMP provides the following general 
guidance on the needs of the fishing communities: ``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.''
    The rockfish rebuilding plans are challenging as overfished 
rockfish indirectly affect fishing opportunities by constraining the 
harvest of target stocks; they affect multiple commercial and 
recreational fishery sectors; it is difficult to lessen fishing impacts 
on one rockfish species without affecting another; some rockfish 
populations are so slow growing that even small increases in the long-
term harvest rate can delay rebuilding for a number of years. The 
Council has approached this challenging situation using a comprehensive 
approach to analyzing rebuilding alternatives and impacts to fishing 
communities.
    Because the rebuilding results in revenue losses in the short-term 
and often in the medium-term, the communities that bear the greatest 
short-term and medium-term revenue impact are those most dependent on 
groundfish and the least resilient. To avoid disastrous short-term 
consequences for fishing communities, harvest levels above the 
TMIN level were considered. The harvest specifications and 
management measures in the Council's preliminary preferred and final 
preferred alternatives considered were generally similar to those in 
place at the start of 2010, with some increased opportunity to the 
California recreational and nearshore fixed gear fisheries south of 
40[deg]10' north latitude. The remaining alternatives recommended for 
analysis by the Council were more restrictive, to provide a meaningful 
analysis of the shortest time possible to rebuild overfished stocks.
    In its recommendations for overfished species rebuilding plans and 
groundfish harvest specifications and management measures for 2011 and 
2012, the Council was clear that it did not expect fishing community 
needs (described in Section 4.5.3.2 of the PCGFMP) could be met by the 
rebuilding plans and management measures being recommended. While the 
Council could not meet the needs of fishing

[[Page 67813]]

communities, the Council took them into account as directed by the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act and recommended harvest specifications and 
management measures that could allow fishing businesses and communities 
to operate at a level that could provide for the continued existence of 
fishing businesses and communities. Opportunities for economic growth 
or profit would only be allowed if they were consistent with the 
adopted rebuilding policies. The Council expressed particular interest 
in seeing the success of new trawl fishery management measures (trawl 
rationalization) and the expected long-term benefits. The supporting 
draft EIS for this action assesses, through the analysis of integrated 
rebuilding alternatives, the needs of groundfish fishing communities, 
the dependence of fishing communities on overfished species, and the 
vulnerability of fishing communities to further near-term reductions in 
groundfish harvest.
    The Council and fisheries science are just beginning to consider 
approaches for transitioning to ecosystem based fisheries management. 
Models for assessing impacts on the marine environment are being 
developed. Given that this area of marine science is in development, 
the respective impact of the rebuilding alternatives on ecosystem 
structure and function cannot be described by science at this time.
    At the start of each biennial management cycle, NMFS and the 
Council establish fishery management measures that are expected to 
allow as much harvest of the healthy species ACLs as possible without 
exceeding allowable harvest levels for co-occurring overfished species. 
At the start of the biennial period, the management measures are based 
on the best scientific information available at the time. However, as 
catch data and new scientific information become available during the 
fishing year, NMFS and the Council's knowledge may change. Catch data 
vary in quality and abundance both before and during the season, and 
catch of the most constraining overfished species may also occur in 
fisheries not managed under the PCGFMP.
    Managing a coastwide fishery to ensure that ACLs of overfished 
species are not exceeded is particularly difficult because of the low 
ACLs. If new information received during the season reveals that total 
catch is occurring at a faster pace than 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 ACLs. If these inseason adjustments to management measures 
are dramatic, such as an early closure of a fishery, then the effects 
of management actions on the fishing communities can be severe. To 
prevent major inseason changes in management measures, the 2011-2012 
overfished species ACLs account for management 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 ACLs. In addition, 
for some overfished species (yelloweye rockfish and POP) annual catch 
targets (ACTs) have been proposed. ACTs provide an additional buffer to 
account for uncertainty and unexpected occurrences within the fishery. 
This additional measure helps prevent ACLs from being exceeded. Even 
with these safeguards, information that becomes available during the 
fishing year from activities within the fishery and from activities 
outside the fishery (i.e. research fishing mortality) may reveal that 
previously set management measures need to be revised inseason. If that 
is the case, management measures will be appropriately adjusted 
inseason.

District Court Ruling in NRDC v. Locke

    NRDC challenged the 2009-2010 groundfish harvest specifications (74 
FR 9,874, March 6, 2009), asserting that the harvest specifications for 
seven overfished species of Pacific groundfish: darkblotched rockfish, 
cowcod, yelloweye rockfish, canary rockfish, bocaccio, Pacific Ocean 
Perch, and widow rockfish violated the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 16 U.S.C. 
1801-1891, and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42 
U.S.C.A. 4321 et seq. The 2009-2010 harvest specifications revised the 
Amendment 16-4 rebuilding periods for four of the seven overfished 
species in accordance with the PCGFMP's rebuilding framework. The Court 
upheld the integrated approach, but determined that the 2009-2010 
harvest specifications for darkblotched rockfish, cowcod, and yelloweye 
rockfish violated the Magnuson-Stevens Act by failing to rebuild the 
species in as short a time as possible and ordered the agency to 
develop, within one year of the Order, revised rebuilding plans for 
those species that are consistent with the MSA.
    With respect to yelloweye rockfish, the court vacated the OY of 17 
metric tons (mt) for 2009-2010 and established an OY of 14 mt for 2010, 
consistent with the ``ramp down'' strategy that the agency adopted in 
the 2007-2008 specifications. The court likewise vacated the 2009-2010 
cowcod OY of 4 mt and the darkblotched rockfish OYs of 285 mt and 291 
mt for 2009 and 2010 stating that they do not rebuild in time periods 
that are as short as possible. For these two species, the court 
established OY levels consistent with the most recent levels in 2007-
2008.
    On July 8, 2010, NMFS revised the harvest specifications for 
yelloweye rockfish, cowcod and darkblotched rockfish to be consistent 
with the court order (75 FR 38030) and projected impacts to 
darkblotched rockfish in 2010 are being actively managed to prevent 
exceeding 290 mt.
    The court also agreed with NRDC's argument that NMFS' decisions 
regarding the rebuilding plans were arbitrary and capricious because 
the agency relied on economic data from 1998, before any of the species 
at issue in the case were declared overfished, and did not use 2002 
data that was available to it. The court ruled that the 1998 data was 
not the best available scientific information, and distorted current 
revenue losses by comparing them to revenues resulting from fishing 
losses before fishing was constrained to rebuild overfished species. 
The use of the 1998 data, the court opined, ``weight[ed] the Agency's 
analysis in favor of short-term economic interests and against 
conservation, in violation of the MSA.'' NMFS used a different approach 
in this biennial cycle.

PCGFMP Amendment 23

    On January 16, 2009, NMFS published a final rule in the Federal 
Register to implement new requirements in the Magnuson-Stevens 
Reauthorization Act by amending the National Standard Guidelines (50 
CFR 600.310) for National Standard 1. National Standard guidelines aid 
in the development and review of fishery management plans (plans), plan 
amendments, and regulations prepared by the regional Fishery Management 
Councils and the Secretary of Commerce. National Standard 1 establishes 
the relationship between conservation and management measures, 
preventing overfishing, and achieving OY from each stock, stock complex 
or fishery. The National Standard 1 guidelines also address the 
classification of stocks within a fishery management plan, and the new 
requirement in the MSRA that fishery management plans include annual 
catch limits (ACLs) to prevent overfishing. Amendment 23 to the PCGFMP 
is intended to modify the harvest specification framework in the PCGFMP

[[Page 67814]]

to be consistent with the revised National Standard 1 guidelines. An 
approval decision on Amendment 23 is expected prior to January 1, 2011. 
Therefore, the harvest specifications being considered for 2011 and 
2012 are consistent with the provisions of Amendment 23.
    To better account for scientific and management uncertainty and to 
prevent overfishing, the revised National Standard 1 guidelines 
introduced new fishery management concepts including: OFL, ACL, ACT, 
and accountability measures (AMs), and defined the term ABC. The 
concept of OY remains in the PCGFMP as revisions to National Standard 1 
did not alter the definition of OY.
    Under the Amendment 23 framework the OFL is an estimate of the 
maximum amount of annual catch of a stock or stock complex from all 
sources (includes landed and discarded catch) that does not result in 
overfishing. Overfishing occurs whenever a stock or stock complex is 
subjected to a rate or level of fishing mortality that jeopardizes the 
stock's capacity to produce MSY (an estimate of the largest long-term 
average annual catch or yield that can be taken from each stock under 
prevailing ecological and environmental conditions) on a continuing 
basis. This level is also referred to as the maximum fishing mortality 
threshold (MFMT) in the PCGFMP. The OFL is comparable to the ABC 
specification used in the Pacific Coast groundfish fishery from 1999 
through 2010.
    The term ABC is redefined under proposed Amendment 23 as an annual 
catch specification that is the stock or stock complex's OFL reduced by 
an amount associated with scientific uncertainty. Proposed Amendment 23 
revises the descriptions of species categories used in the development 
of the ABC. The first category (category 1) includes those species 
where relatively data-rich quantitative stock assessment can be 
conducted on the basis of catch-at-age, catch-at-length or other data. 
OFLs and overfished/rebuilding thresholds can generally be calculated 
for these species. The second category (category 2) includes species 
for which some biological indicators are available, including a 
relatively data-poor quantitative assessment or non-quantitative 
assessments. The third category (category 3) includes minor species 
which are caught and where the only available information is on the 
landed biomass.
    For species that have had relatively data-rich quantitative stock 
assessments prepared (category 1 stocks), the Council chose to 
determine ABC based on the SSC-recommended framework for estimating the 
relative risk of overfishing the stock (referred to as the P* 
approach). The SSC quantified the scientific uncertainty in the 
estimate of OFL ([sigma]) and presented a range of probabilities of 
overfishing (P*). Each P* value links to a corresponding fraction that 
is used to reduce the OFL and to derive an ABC. As the P* value is 
reduced, the probability of the ABC being greater than the ``true'' OFL 
becomes lower. The Council then determines its preferred level of risk 
aversion by selecting an appropriate P* value. Amendment 23 provides 
that 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.
    For stocks with data-poor stock assessments or no stock assessments 
(category 2 and 3 stocks), proposed Amendment 23 recognizes that there 
is greater scientific uncertainty in the estimate of OFL. Therefore, 
the scientific uncertainty buffer is generally greater than that 
recommended for stocks with quantitative stock assessments. It may be 
determined using straight percentage reductions (25% for category 2 or 
50% for category 3) or using the P* approach with larger sigma values. 
The Council adopted an upper limit on P* for all three categories of 
0.45. For category 2 and 3 species, Amendment 23 provides that either 
the P*-Sigma approach or the straight percentage reduction from OFL 
will be used unless the Council adopts an SSC-recommended approach 
during the biennial specification process.
    The ACL is a harvest specification set equal to or below the ABC 
threshold which considers conservation objectives, socio-economic 
concerns, management uncertainty and other factors. All sources of 
fishing-related mortality including landings, discard mortality, and 
catches in exempted fishing permit activities are counted against the 
ACL. In addition, research fishing catches are counted against the ACL. 
Sector-specific ACLs may be specified, particularly in cases where a 
sector has a formal, long-term allocation of the harvestable surplus of 
a stock or stock complex. The new ACL values are comparable to the OY 
specification used in the Pacific Coast groundfish fishery from 1999 
through 2010.
    The ACTs are management targets set below the ACL to address 
management uncertainty. The term ``catch'' includes fish that are 
retained for any purpose, as well as mortality of fish that are 
discarded. Therefore, for fisheries where estimates are not available 
in a timely enough manner to manage retained and discarded catch 
(bycatch) inseason, targets may be specified. In addition, 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. These 
targets account for landings and bycatch estimates such that the total 
of landings and bycatch will not exceed the stock or stock complex's 
ACL. Since the annual catch target 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 annual catch targets can 
also be specified to accomplish management objectives.
    The AMs are management controls that prevent ACLs or sector-ACLs 
from being exceeded, where possible, and correct or mitigate overages 
if they occur. If a stock or stock complex's catch exceeds its ACL, AMs 
will be invoked as specified in the PCGFMP. If ACLs are exceeded more 
often than 1 in 4 years, then AMs, such as catch monitoring and 
inseason adjustments to fisheries, need to improve or additional AMs 
may need to be implemented. The development of harvest specifications 
for 2011-2012 is discussed later in the preamble to this proposed rule, 
while the harvest specifications are provided in Tables 1a through 2d.
    Amendment 23 adds an additional species category 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. Amendment 23 does not 
propose that any species currently in the PCGFMP be designated as an EC 
species. Amendment 23 removes dusky rockfish and red-dwarf rockfish 
from the PCGFMP as there are no recorded landings of these species in 
the groundfish fishery.

PCGFMP Amendments 20 and 21

    Amendment 20 established a program to ``rationalize'' the 
groundfish limited entry trawl fishery. Rationalization of a fishery is 
designed to create a sustainable level of fishing from both the 
resources conservation and economic perspective through the use of 
harvest shares and cooperatives. The

[[Page 67815]]

program being implemented under Amendment 20 to the PCGFMP uses quota 
shares, or catch allocation, to allow individuals to harvest specific 
amounts of groundfish. The trawl rationalization program is intended to 
increase net economic benefits, create individual economic stability, 
provide full utilization of the trawl sector allocation, consider 
environmental impacts, and achieve individual accountability of catch 
(retained and discarded). NMFS approved Amendment 20 on August 9, 2010, 
and expects to fully implement it prior to January 1, 2011, so the 
harvest specifications and management measures being considered for 
2011 and 2012 are consistent with the provisions of Amendment 20.
    For the purposes of Amendment 20, the limited entry trawl fishery 
has been divided into three distinct sectors (shoreside, mothership, 
and catcher/processor). An individual fishing quota (IFQ) program is 
created for the shoreside sector and harvester cooperatives are created 
for the catcher/processor and mothership sectors. Formal allocations 
(to and among the trawl sectors) necessary to support the trawl 
rationalization program have been adopted under Amendment 21 to the 
PCGFMP.
    Amendment 21 to the PCGFMP modifies the PCGFMP framework by 
specifying formal, long term allocations for the following species: 
Lingcod, Pacific cod, sablefish south of 36[deg] north latitude, 
Pacific ocean perch (POP), widow rockfish, chilipepper rockfish, 
splitnose rockfish, yellowtail rockfish north of 40[deg]10' north 
latitude, shortspine thornyhead (north and south of 34[deg]27' north 
latitude), longspine thornyhead north of 34[deg]27' north latitude, 
darkblotched rockfish, minor slope rockfish (north and south of 
40[deg]10' north latitude), Dover sole, English sole, petrale sole, 
arrowtooth flounder, starry flounder, and other flatfish. Because 
Amendment 21 has been approved, the harvest specifications being 
considered for 2011 and 2012 are consistent with the provisions of 
Amendment 21. Long term, formal allocations are expected to provide 
more stability to the trawl fishery sectors by reducing the risk of the 
trawl sector being closed as a result of a non-trawl or recreational 
fishery exceeding an allocation or harvest guideline.
    Species that are not formally allocated under Amendment 21 will 
continue to be addressed through short-term allocations that are to be 
decided through the biennial harvest specifications and management 
measure process. IFQ species with trawl and non-trawl allocations 
established through the biennial harvest specifications include the 
following species: canary rockfish, bocaccio, cowcod, yelloweye 
rockfish, and minor shelf rockfish north and south. In addition to 
allocations specified under the Amendment 21 provisions for 2011 and 
2012, trawl and non-trawl allocations are being specified through the 
biennial harvest specifications for the following: minor nearshore 
rockfish north and south, and longnose skate. Species being managed 
under trip limits and without trawl and non-trawl allocations are: 
Shortbelly rockfish, longspine thornyhead south of 34[deg]27' north 
latitude, black rockfish (Washington-Oregon), California scorpionfish, 
cabezon (California only), kelp greenling, and the ``other fish'' 
complex.
    Amendment 21 also provides for the use of fishery set-asides. 
Fishery set-asides are not formal allocations but rather amounts that 
are not available to the other fisheries during the fishing year. Set-
asides for the catcher/processor and mothership sectors of the at-sea 
Pacific whiting fishery are deducted from the limited entry trawl 
fishery allocation. Set-asides for the Pacific Coast treaty Indian 
tribal harvest, and exempted fishing permits (EFPs) are deducted from 
the ACL. Set-aside amounts could change through the biennial harvest 
specifications and management measures process. The set-aside amounts 
will be specified in the footnotes to Tables 1a through 2b of this 
subpart.
    In addition to a new groundfish allocation framework, Amendment 21 
would establish Pacific Halibut trawl mortality limits to restrict the 
incidental catch of Pacific halibut in limited entry trawl fisheries. 
The trawl mortality limit may be adjusted downward or upward through 
the biennial harvest specifications and management measures process. 
Trawl individual bycatch quota (IBQ) for halibut will be issued for the 
Shorebased IFQ Program north of 40[deg]10' north latitude. A portion of 
the overall trawl mortality limit (10 mt) is a set-aside for the at-sea 
whiting fisheries (catcher/processor and mothership) and the Shorebased 
IFQ Program south of 40[deg]10' north latitude, where halibut IBQ is 
not required. The set-aside amount of Pacific halibut to accommodate 
the incidental catch in the trawl fishery south of 40[deg]10' north 
latitude and in the at-sea whiting fishery may be adjusted in the 
biennial harvest specifications and management measures process. The 
use of a trawl mortality limit for Pacific halibut in Area 2A trawl 
fisheries is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act mandate to 
minimize bycatch, while providing increased benefits to Area 2A fishers 
targeting Pacific halibut.
    Under Amendment 20, up to 10 percent of unused IFQ quota pounds in 
a vessel's account may be carried over for use in the next fishing 
year. Similarly, in order to cover an overage (landings that exceed the 
amount of quota pounds held in a vessel account) that is within 10 
percent of the quota pounds that have been in the vessel account during 
the year, the vessel owner may use that amount from the quota pounds he 
will receive in the following fishing year to account for the overage 
in the current year. The rationale for the carryover as presented in 
the Amendment 20 EIS is to provide increased flexibility to fishery 
participants. During the biennial harvest specification and management 
process the Council discussed how the carry-over provision works in 
relationship to the 2011-2012 harvest specifications, this provision is 
further discussed below.

OFL Policy

    The OFL is the MSY harvest level associated with the current stock 
abundance. When setting the 2011 and 2012 OFLs for category 1 species, 
the FMSY harvest rate or a proxy was applied to the 
estimated exploitable biomass. 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 is also referred to as the 
FMSY control rule or maximum fishing mortality threshold 
(MFMT) harvest rate. For category 2 species, OFLs are typically set at 
a constant level and monitoring is necessary to determine if this level 
of catch is causing a slow decline in stock abundance. It is difficult 
to estimate overfished and overfishing thresholds for the category 2 
species a priori, but indicators of long-term, potential overfishing 
can be identified. Average catches are generally used to determine the 
OFL for category 3 species.%
    For 2011 and 2012, 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). A 
proxy is used because there is insufficient information for most 
Pacific Coast groundfish stocks to establish a species-specific 
FMSY. In 2011 and 2012, the following default harvest rate 
proxies, based on the Council's SSC recommendations, were used: 
F30% for flatfish, F40% for Pacific Whiting, 
F50% for rockfish (including thornyheads), and F45% 
for other groundfish such as

[[Page 67816]]

sablefish and lingcod. The OFL for groundfish species with stock 
assessments are derived by multiplying the harvest rate proxy by the 
current estimated biomass. A rate of F40% is a more 
aggressive rate than F45% or F50%.
    The PCGFMP allows default harvest rate proxies to be modified as 
scientific knowledge improves for a particular species. A fishing 
mortality or harvest rate will mean different things for different 
stocks, 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. 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 flatfish, a new proxy of F30% is being used for the 
2011-2012 specifications. Following the 2009 scientific peer review of 
the petrale sole assessment by the Council's stock STAR panel, the STAR 
panel prepared a report which recommended that the SSC review the 
estimates of FMSY and BMSY produced by the 
petrale sole assessment and investigate alternatives to the proxies of 
F40% and B40%. The SSCs groundfish sub-committee 
further considered the proxies produced by the petrale sole assessment 
and recommended that proxies of B25% for BMSY and 
F30% for FMSY be established for all west coast 
flatfish.
    The overfished threshold or minimum stock size threshold (MSST) is 
the estimated biomass level of the stock relative to its unfished 
biomass (i.e., depletion level) below which the stock is considered 
overfished. The current default proxy MSST for all the actively managed 
groundfish stocks and stock complexes, other than the assessed flatfish 
species, is 25 percent of the unfished biomass (B25%), which 
is 62.5 percent of the BMSY target of B40%. The 
default proxy MSST for the assessed flatfish species is being revised 
from B25% to B12.5% which is 50 percent of the 
BMSY target of B25%.
    The full SSC endorsed the groundfish subcommittee's recommendation 
to establish new proxies of B25% for BMSY and 
F30% for FMSY for flatfish. The values were based 
on a number of considerations, including evaluation of information on 
flatfish productivity (steepness) for assessed west coast flatfish, 
published meta-analyses of other flatfish stocks, and recommendations 
on appropriate proxies for FMSY and BMSY in the 
scientific literature. The SSC however did not endorse the use of a 
species-specific estimate of BMSY and FMSY for 
petrale sole because of high variability in the estimates between 
repeat assessments for other stocks and the sensitivity of the 
estimates to assumptions concerning stock structure.
    For the 2011-2012 biennial specification process, two new 
methodologies were evaluated for determining OFL from data-poor stocks 
(unassessed category 2 species and category 3 species). In January 
2010, the SSC Groundfish Subcommittee and Groundfish Management Team 
(GMT) examined yield estimates from the Depletion-Corrected Average 
Catch (DCAC) and the Depletion-Based Stock Reduction Analysis (DB-SRA) 
for 31 groundfish stock assessments. The DCAC and DB-SRA were developed 
by stock assessment scientists from the Northwest Fishery Science 
Center (NWFSC) and the Southwest Fishery Science Center. The DCAC 
provides an estimate of sustainable yield (the OFL) for data-poor 
stocks of uncertain status. DCAC adjusts historical average catch to 
account for one-time ``windfall'' catches that are the result of stock 
depletion, producing an estimate of yield that was likely to be 
sustainable over the same time period. Advantages of the DCAC approach 
to determining sustainable yield for data-poor stocks include: (1) 
Minimal data requirements, (2) biologically-based adjustment to catch-
based yield proxies with transparent assumptions about relative changes 
in abundance, and (3) simplicity in computing. The DB-SRA extends the 
DCAC by (1) restoring the temporal link between production and biomass 
and (2) evaluating and integrating alternative hypotheses regarding 
changes in abundance during the historical catch period. This method 
combines DCAC's distributional assumptions regarding life history 
characteristics and stock status with the dynamic models and simulation 
approach of stochastic stock reduction analysis. The SSC Groundfish 
Subcommittee endorsed application of DCAC and DB-SRA to derive the OFL 
for unassessed groundfish stocks. Although the Council would like 
further analysis, the Council did recognize that the DB-SRA and the 
DCAC methods used by the GMT were the best available scientific 
information for determining OFLs for category 2 and 3 stocks.

Proposed OFLs for 2011 and 2012

    For the 2011 and 2012 biennial specification process, 8 stock 
assessments and 4 stock assessment updates were prepared. Full stock 
assessments, those that consider the appropriateness of the assessment 
model and that revise the model as necessary, were prepared for the 
following stocks: Bocaccio, widow rockfish, lingcod, cabezon, yelloweye 
rockfish, petrale sole, splitnose rockfish and greenstriped rockfish. 
Stock assessment updates, those that run new data through an existing 
model without changing the model, were prepared for: Canary rockfish, 
cowcod, darkblotched rockfish, and POP. Each new stock assessment 
includes a base model and two alternative models. The alternative 
models are developed from the base model by bracketing the dominant 
dimension of uncertainty (e.g., stock-recruitment steepness or 
R0, natural mortality rate, survey catchability, recent 
year-class strength, weights on conflicting CPUE series, etc.) and are 
intended to be a means of expressing uncertainty within the model for 
decision makers by showing the contrast in management implications. 
Once a base model has been bracketed on either side by alternative 
model scenarios, capturing the overall degree of uncertainty in the 
assessment, a 2-way decision table analysis (states-of-nature versus 
management action) is used to present the repercussions of uncertainty. 
As noted above, the SSC makes recommendations to the Council on the 
appropriateness of using the different stock assessments for management 
purposes, after which the Council considers adoption of the stock 
assessments, use of the stock assessment for the development of 
rebuilding analysis, and the OFLs resulting from the base model runs of 
the stock assessments. Tables 1a and 2a present the specifications for 
each stock while the footnotes to these tables describe how the 
proposed specifications were derived.
    For species that did not have new stock assessments or updates 
prepared, the Council considered an OFL derived from the most recent 
stock assessment or update, the results of rudimentary stock 
assessments, or the historical landings data approved by the Council 
for use in setting harvest specifications. Detailed information on how 
the OFLs for species without any new stock assessments were derived are 
provided in the footnotes to Table 1a and Table 2a. The stock 
assessment cycle and the process for adoption of final OFLs for Pacific 
whiting are detailed below.
    Species that are not overfished and for which new stock assessments 
or stock assessment updates were prepared and recommended for use in 
setting harvest specifications by the Council include: Lingcod, 
greenstriped rockfish,

[[Page 67817]]

splitnose rockfish, Cabezon. Specific information on the OFLs for 
species associated with these new stock assessments and assessment 
updates are provided in the footnotes to Table 1a and Table 2a.
    For the overfished species, new assessments were prepared for 
bocaccio, petrale sole, widow rockfish, yelloweye rockfish and stock 
assessment updates were prepared for canary rockfish, cowcod, 
darkblotched, POP. The following stock assessment summaries pertain to 
the new stock assessments or stock assessment updates for stocks that 
have been declared overfished.

Bocaccio (Sebastes Paucispinis)

    A new stock assessment was prepared for the bocaccio stock between 
the U.S.-Mexico border and Cape Blanco, OR, using the Stock Synthesis 
3.03a model. Changes in the model from the prior assessment include: A 
northern expansion of the modeled area from Cape Mendocino, CA, to Cape 
Blanco, OR; and the extension of the catch history from 1950 to 1892. 
Assessment scientists have treated bocaccio as independent stocks north 
and south of Cape Mendocino. The southern stock, which has been 
declared overfished, occurs south of Cape Mendocino. Although the range 
extends considerably further north, there is some evidence that there 
are two demographic clusters of bocaccio. The northern stock is found 
north of 48[deg] north latitude in northern Washington and Canada, with 
a relative rarity of bocaccio (particularly smaller fish) in the region 
between Cape Mendocino and the Columbia River mouth.
    Since the early 2000s, the bocaccio spawning output has been 
increasing steadily. Spawning output in 2009 was estimated at 2,209,900 
mt (~95 percent confidence: 1,546,440--2,873,360 mt). Bocaccio 
depletion was estimated to be 28.12 percent (0.18--0.37 percent) of its 
unfished biomass in 2009. There are clear signs that the stock is 
rebuilding at a relatively rapid rate. Recovery may be taking place 
more rapidly in the south, and recovery in the central/northern 
California region may be dependent on an influx of fish from the 
southern area.
    Model uncertainty regarding natural mortality rates and estimates 
of selectivity for the NMFS triennial trawl survey continue to be 
problematic. Since 2001, large scale area closures have affected the 
spatial distribution of fishing mortality and truncated several 
abundance indices (recreational CPUE indices), confounding the 
interpretation of survey indices as well as fishery dependent and 
independent length frequency data. Data from relatively recent, short-
term surveys do not yet appear to be informative with respect to trends 
in abundance, although they are informative with respect to cohort 
strength.
    At the September 2009 Council meeting, the SSC endorsed the use of 
the 2009 bocaccio assessment for status determination and management in 
the Council process. The SSC supported the extension of the assessment 
area as biologically appropriate given the current understanding of 
stock structure, but also recognized that the boundary extension raises 
issues with respect to area management. Approximately 6 percent of the 
coastwide bocaccio catch has occurred historically between Cape 
Mendocino and Cape Blanco while only 1 percent has been taken from the 
California/Oregon border to Cape Blanco. The SSC indicated that there 
was no conservation issue north of the 40[deg]10' north latitude 
management boundary at Cape Mendocino, based on these low bocaccio 
catches in the area. Therefore, the SSC did not recommend changing the 
area where bocaccio are designated as overfished. The SSC indicated 
that management should be based on a pro-rata allocation using the 
historical catch distribution north and south of 40[deg]10' north 
latitude. The bocaccio OFL of 737 mt for 2011 and 732 mt for 2012 was 
based on the FMSY harvest rate proxy of 
F50 as applied to the estimated exploitable biomass 
from the 2009 stock assessment. For setting harvest specifications, six 
percent of the assessed biomass was estimated to occur north of 
40[deg]10' north latitude. The projected OFLs from the assessment were 
adjusted accordingly.

Canary Rockfish (Sebastes Pinniger)

    A stock assessment update was prepared for the coastwide canary 
rockfish stock using the Stock Synthesis 3.03a model. Consistent with 
the Terms of Reference for Groundfish Stock Assessments, fishery and 
survey data were updated through 2008. Data updates for earlier years 
were also made with most of the updates being minor, with the exception 
of historical catch estimates (< 1981) that were substantially revised 
by NMFS and CDFG scientists. The historical catch revisions resulted in 
a 24 percent reduction in the total estimated canary rockfish catch 
from 1916 to 2006, with most of this reduction occurring prior to 1968. 
The new data resulted in a rebuilding trajectory that was overall lower 
than previous projections. Although the stock has continued to progress 
towards the rebuilding threshold (B40), the overall 
lowering of the trajectory means that it would take more time to reach 
the B40. The new assessment estimated the 2007 
depletion level for canary rockfish to have been 21.7 percent (below 
the estimate of 32.4 percent for 2007 from the 2007 assessment with 95 
percent confidence bounds of 24-41 percent) and the 2009 depletion 
level to have been 23.7 percent with 95 percent confidence bounds of 
17-30 percent). The SSC indicated that the broad confidence interval on 
the depletion level was due to a high degree of uncertainty in the 
parameter estimates, especially steepness. The change in the depletion 
level is largely due to the revised historical catch time-series for 
California. At the Council's September meeting, the SSC indicated that 
revised catches reflected the best available data, and were consistent 
with the Terms of Reference for Stock Assessment Documents.
    The assessment update estimated the unfished spawning stock biomass 
to be 25,993 mt (down from the 2007 estimate of 32,561 mt). After a 
period of above average recruitments, recent year-class strengths 
(1997-2008) have generally been low, with only 4 of the 12 years (1999, 
2001, 2006, and 2007) estimated to have produced larger recruitments. 
Because of the limited number of years they have been observed, the 
strengths of the 2006-2007 year classes are subject to greater 
uncertainty. As the larger recruitments from the late 1980s and early 
1990s move through the population, the rate of recovery to 
BMSY in future projections is estimated to slow. Because the 
species has a patchy distribution it is difficult to sample well with 
the bottom trawl gear used in the trawl survey.
    The base case assessment model explicitly captures parameter 
uncertainty in the asymptotic confidence intervals for key parameters 
and management quantities. Uncertainty around the base model results is 
considered through integration of rebuilding trajectories over two 
alternate states of nature corresponding to lower and higher stock-
recruitment steepness, the parameter largely governing productivity and 
recent rebuilding trajectory. At the Council's September meeting the 
SCC indicated that the canary rockfish stock assessment update 
represented the ``best available science,'' and was suitable to use for 
Council management decisions. The canary rockfish OFL of 614 mt for 
2011 and 622 mt for 2012 was based on the FMSY harvest rate 
proxy of F50 as applied to the estimated exploitable 
biomass from the 2009 stock assessment update.

[[Page 67818]]

Cowcod (Sebastes Levis)

    A stock assessment update was prepared for cowcod in the Southern 
California Bight (U.S. waters south of Point Conception--34[deg]27' 
north latitude) using an age-structured production model (Stock 
Synthesis 2 model). The assumption of an isolated stock is untested, 
and no information is available regarding stock structure or dispersal 
across the assumed stock boundaries. No new data sources were available 
for this update assessment.
    Cowcod is a long lived species with a mean generation time 
estimated at 38 years. Relative depletion was estimated at 4.5 percent 
in 2009 for the base model. The cowcod stock shows a slowly increasing 
trend in stock biomass, but given that no new data are available, this 
result is little more than a stock projection. Cowcod remain on a 
multi-decadal rebuilding timeline. Management actions since 2001, that 
include large scale area closures specifically to reduce fishery 
interactions with cowcod, have truncated data used in the assessment. 
Due to uncertainty in total mortality since no-retention regulations 
took effect, recreational and commercial mortalities have been assumed 
to be 0.25 metric tons per year, per fishery. A major source of 
uncertainty in the assessment was the assumed value of the steepness 
parameter in the spawner-recruit relationship. In addition, the 
percentage of cowcod in total rockfish landings in years prior to the 
1980s is not well understood. At the Council's June 2009 meeting the 
SSC indicated that the updated assessment for cowcod represented the 
``best available science,'' and was suitable as the basis for Council 
management decisions. The 2011 and 2012 cowcod OFL contribution for the 
Conception area (south of 36[deg]00' north latitude) was determined 
from the 2009 stock assessment update with an FMSY proxy harvest rate 
of F50% applied to the estimated exploitable biomass for the assessed 
portion of the stock in the Conception area. The OFLs for the Monterey 
area were determined using a DB-SRA approach. The OFLs for the 
Conception and the Monterey areas were summed to determine an OFL 
specification of 13 mt for 2011 and 2012 for the entire stock south of 
40[deg]10' north latitude.

Darkblotched Rockfish (Sebastes Crameri)

    In 2009, a stock assessment update was prepared for darkblotched 
rockfish the U.S. Vancouver, Columbia, Eureka and Monterey areas using 
the Stock Synthesis 3.03a model. During the previous assessment cycle, 
The SSC indicated that changes to the darkblotched rockfish stock 
assessment model in 2007 (same model used for 2009 update) represented 
a substantial advancement over previous stock assessments.
    The fishing mortality rate on darkblotched rockfish has been 
greatly reduced, and darkblotched rockfish appear to be rebuilding 
gradually, relatively consistent with previous rebuilding projections. 
The point estimate for the depletion of the spawning output at the 
start of 2009 is 27.5 percent. In 2009, the biomass (1+ age fish) is 
estimated at 12,836 mt, as compared to