# 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

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2010-26941

## Record

- **Collection:** Federal Register
- **Document type:** Proposed Rule
- **Published:** November 3, 2010
- **Citation:** 75 FR 67810

## Text

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
http://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
http://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
http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/aces140.html.
Background information and documents are available at the NMFS Northwest Region Web site at
http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Groundfish-Halibut/Groundfish-Fishery-Management/index.cfm
and at the Council's Web site at
http://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°10′ north latitude; canary rockfish; cowcod south of 40°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.

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 F
MSY
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 (B
MSY
); 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 B
MSY
(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 André 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 André 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 B
0
(the unfished biomass and hence B
MSY
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 (T
MIN
); 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

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 T
MIN.
T
MIN
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 T
TARGET
. T
TARGET
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 T
TARGET
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 (B
MSY
).

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 T
MIN
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°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

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

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 (σ) 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

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° north latitude, Pacific ocean perch (POP), widow rockfish, chilipepper rockfish, splitnose rockfish, yellowtail rockfish north of 40°10′ north latitude, shortspine thornyhead (north and south of 34°27′ north latitude), longspine thornyhead north of 34°27′ north latitude, darkblotched rockfish, minor slope rockfish (north and south of 40°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°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°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°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°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 F
MSY
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 F
MSY
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 (F
MSY
). A proxy is used because there is insufficient information for most Pacific Coast groundfish stocks to establish a species-specific F
MSY
. In 2011 and 2012, the following default harvest rate proxies, based on the Council's SSC recommendations, were used: F
30%
for flatfish, F
40%
for Pacific Whiting, F
50%
for rockfish (including thornyheads), and F
45%
for other groundfish such as

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 F
40%
is a more aggressive rate than F
45%
or F
50%
.

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 F
30%
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 F
MSY
and B
MSY
produced by the petrale sole assessment and investigate alternatives to the proxies of F
40%
and B
40%
. The SSCs groundfish sub-committee further considered the proxies produced by the petrale sole assessment and recommended that proxies of B
25%
for B
MSY
and F
30%
for F
MSY
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 (B
25%
), which is 62.5 percent of the B
MSY
target of B
40%
. The default proxy MSST for the assessed flatfish species is being revised from B
25%
to B
12.5%
which is 50 percent of the B
MSY
target of B
25%
.

The full SSC endorsed the groundfish subcommittee's recommendation to establish new proxies of B
25%
for B
MSY
and F
30%
for F
MSY
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 F
MSY
and B
MSY
in the scientific literature. The SSC however did not endorse the use of a species-specific estimate of B
MSY
and F
MSY
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 R
0
, 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,

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° 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°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°10′ north latitude. The bocaccio OFL of 737 mt for 2011 and 732 mt for 2012 was based on the F
MSY
harvest rate proxy of F
50
%
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°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 (B
40
%
), the overall lowering of the trajectory means that it would take more time to reach the B
40
%
. 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 B
MSY
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 F
MSY
harvest rate proxy of F
50
%
as applied to the estimated exploitable biomass from the 2009 stock assessment update.

Cowcod (Sebastes Levis)

A stock assessment update was prepared for cowcod in the Southern California Bight (U.S. waters south of Point Conception—34°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°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°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 5,862 mt in 2000. The recruitment pattern for darkblotched rockfish is highly variable between years. Recruitment levels between the 1980's and 1990's were generally poor when compared with average historical recruitment levels, with the exceptions being the 1999 and 2000 year-classes which appear to be two of the four largest years since 1975. The estimated increase in stock size is driven primarily by the assumption that darkblotched productivity is analogous to that of other similar species, and not on survey and fishery data indicating an upward trend.

A number of sources of uncertainty were explicitly included in the assessment. Allowance was made for uncertainty in natural mortality and the parameters of the stock recruitment relationship. Sources of uncertainty not included in the current model, included: The degree of connection between the stocks of darkblotched rockfish off British Columbia and those in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ); the effect of climatic variables on recruitment, growth and survival of darkblotched rockfish; and gender based differences in survival. At the Council's June 2009 meeting the SSC indicated that the updated assessment for darkblotched rockfish represented the “best available science,” and was suitable as the basis for Council management decisions. The darkblotched rockfish OFL of 508 mt for 2011 and 497 mt for 2012 was based on the F
MSY
harvest rate proxy of F
50
%
as applied to the estimated exploitable biomass from the 2009 stock assessment update.

Petrale Sole (Eopsetta Jordani)

A new coastwide stock assessment was prepared for petrale sole using the Stock Synthesis 3.03a model. There is currently no genetic evidence suggesting distinct biological stocks of petrale sole off the U.S. coast. Given the lack of clear information regarding the status of distinct biological populations, the assessment treats the U.S. petrale sole resource from the Mexican border to the Canadian border as a single coastwide stock.

Petrale sole were lightly exploited during the early 1900s. By the 1950s, the petrale sole fishery was well developed and showing clear signs of depletion and declines in catches and biomass. The base model indicates that the spawning biomass has been below B
25
%
continuously since 1953. The petrale sole spawning stock biomass is estimated to have increased slightly from the late 1990s, peaking in 2005, in response to above average recruitment. However, this increasing trend has reversed since the 2005 assessment and the stock has been declining, most likely due to strong year classes having passed through the fishery. The estimated relative depletion level for 2009 is 11.6 percent. Unfished spawning stock biomass was estimated to be 25,334 mt.

The base case assessment model includes within model uncertainty (assessment parameter uncertainty) from a variety of sources, but it likely underestimates the uncertainty in recent trend and current stock status. For this reason, in addition to asymptotic confidence intervals, results from models that reflect alternate states of nature regarding the estimate of 2009 spawning biomass are presented as a decision table within the stock assessment document.

At the Council's June 2009 meeting, the SSC reviewed the new petrale sole assessment and, based on a number of concerns, was unable to endorse the assessment at that time. While the petrale sole assessment appeared to be technically sound and thoroughly reviewed by the STAR panel, the SSC was concerned that certain assessment results were so extreme that the overall plausibility of the assessment was called into question. Attention focused primarily on the estimated catchability of the NWFSC survey, the estimate of stock-recruit steepness (0.95), and confounding of estimated model parameters. The Council's STAR Panel recommended that the estimates of F
MSY
and B
MSY
produced by the petrale sole assessment be investigated as alternatives to the currently used proxies for F
40
%
and B
40
%
. The SSC developed a list of analytical requests for the Council's petrale sole Stock Assessment Team to address. The SSC's groundfish subcommittee and the Council's Stock Assessment Team reviewed the model and proxies of F
40
%
and B
40
%
. After further consideration by the SSC's groundfish subcommittee, the full SSC endorsed the petrale sole stock

assessment model approved by the Council's STAR panel, and recommended that proxies of B
25
%
for B
MSY
and F
30
%
for F
MSY
be established for all flatfish not only petrale sole.

The SSC agreed that the base petrale sole model represents the best available scientific information, and endorsed its use for status determination and management in the Council process. The SSC concluded that there is no basis for rejecting the assessment based on the estimated catchability coefficient (q) for NWFSC trawl survey. However the SSC encouraged further investigation of the catchability coefficient of the survey by experimental evaluation of trawl performance, quantification of trawlable and untrawlable habitat off the west coast, or by synthesis of available information and expert knowledge through development of an informative prior, as had been anticipated from the 2008 survey catchability workshop. The SSC also endorsed further evaluation of fishery CPUE data in the next petrale sole assessment. The petrale sole OFL of 1,021 mt for 2011 and 1,279 mt for 2012 was based on the F
MSY
harvest rate proxy of F
30
%
as applied to the estimated exploitable biomass from the 2009 stock assessment.

POP (Sebastes Alutus)

A stock assessment update was prepared for POP in the combined U.S. Vancouver and Columbia areas using the same forward projection age-structured model used in the previous stock assessment. Consistent with the Terms of Reference for Groundfish Stock Assessments, fishery, survey, and observer data were updated to include the years since the last assessment. Only minor updates to the data from earlier years were made.

There were no significant changes in the view of stock status between the 2007 and 2009 assessment updates. The estimate of depletion of the spawning biomass at the start of 2009 is estimated to be 28.6 percent. The POP biomass shows an increasing trend. Poor recruitment has been seen in recent years, compared with the 1950s and 1960s, although the 1999 year class appears to be larger than any other since the 1960's. The 2000 year class also appears to be relatively large; however, this may be due to some small amount of overall bias in ageing.

A number of sources of uncertainty are explicitly included in this assessment such as uncertainty in natural mortality, the parameters of the stock-recruitment relationship, and the survey catch ability coefficients. There are also other sources of uncertainty that are not included in the current model. These include the degree of connection between the U.S. and Canadian stocks; the effect of climatic variables on recruitment, growth and survival; gender differences in growth and survival; and the relationship between individual spawner biomass and effective spawning output and age and maturity.

At the Council's June 2009 meeting the SSC indicated that the updated assessment for POP represented the “best available science,” and would be suitable as the basis for Council management decisions. The POP OFL of 1,026 mt for 2011 and 1,007 mt for 2012 was based on the F
MSY
harvest rate proxy of F
50
%
as applied to the estimated exploitable biomass from the 2009 stock assessment update.

Widow Rockfish (Sebastes Entomelas)

A new coastwide stock assessment was prepared for widow rockfish in the U.S Vancouver, Columbia, Eureka, Monterey, and Conception areas. The 2009 assessment differed from the previous assessment in several respects: The assessment used the Stock Synthesis 3 model rather than an age-based population model; the catch history was revised and extended back to 1916; catch, age structure, and survey data were updated through 2008; and data from the NWFSC trawl survey were included in the assessment.

The widow rockfish spawning biomass steadily declined from 1980 to 2003, when widow rockfish was targeted in a major commercial fishery. Since 2003, spawning biomass has shown an increasing trend. For 2009 spawning biomass is estimated at 15,625 mt (~95 percent confidence: 5,984-25,266 mt). Depletion in 2009 is estimated at 38.5 percent (14.2-62.9 percent) of unfished biomass. Because the biomass is below B
40
%
it remains under a rebuilding plan.

Uncertainty in estimation of widow rockfish recruitment remains high. The highest known widow rockfish recruitment occurred in 1970. When compared to the long-term average, recruitment was relatively low in the early 1990s and since 2001. The 2007 stock assessment update indicated that the 2000 recruitment was relatively strong; however, the new stock assessment did not confirm a strong 2000 recruitment. In general, estimates of recruitment for the most recent years are uncertain, and can have a considerable impact on the outcomes of rebuilding projections.

The SSC endorsed the use of the 2009 widow rockfish stock assessment for status determination and management in the Council process. The widow rockfish OFLs of 5,097 mt for 2011 and 4,923 mt for 2012 were based on the F
MSY
harvest rate proxy of F
50
%
as applied to the estimated exploitable biomass from the 2009 stock assessment.

Yelloweye Rockfish (Sebastes Ruberrimus)

A new coastwide stock assessment was prepared for yelloweye rockfish in 2009 using the Stock Synthesis 3.03b model. The 2009 assessment differed from previous assessments in terms of assumed population structure and the data used to fit the model. The 2009 assessment was based on three regions (California, Oregon and Washington) under the assumptions that: Adults are sedentary; density-dependence is a function of coastwide egg production; and the proportion of recruits settling in each area is constant over time. This spatial structure is consistent with our understanding of the behavior of yelloweye rockfish, and reflects a compromise between a coastwide assessment and separate assessments for each state.

Even with a large number of changes to data inputs, the results from the 2009 yelloweye rockfish assessment are consistent with those from the 2006 and 2007 assessments. All of

these assessments suggest that yelloweye rockfish experienced a substantial decline in abundance between 1980 and 2000, with increased catches. Large reductions in harvest have been in place since 2000. The best estimate of depletion in 2009 from the current assessment is 20.3 percent of unfished biomass (states of nature: 17.3-23.5 percent). This represents an increase from the 2007 updated assessment, which estimated depletion in 2007 to be 16.4 percent.

In contrast to the 2006 and 2007 assessments, the 2009 assessment makes use of data from the NWFSC and triennial trawl surveys as well as data on discarded yelloweye rockfish collected by observers in the Oregon recreational charter fishery. However, the International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC) survey data remain the most important index in the assessment, although IPHC survey data are only available for Washington and Oregon and not California, where the largest potential biomass of yelloweye rockfish is estimated to occur.

Data for yelloweye rockfish are sparse and relatively uninformative, especially regarding current trends. Yelloweye rockfish catches are very uncertain due to the relatively small contribution to rockfish market categories and the

relatively large scale of recreational removals. In addition, since 2001, management restrictions have required nearly all yelloweye rockfish caught by recreational and commercial fishers to be discarded at sea. Currently available fishery-independent indices of abundance are imprecise and not highly informative. It is unclear whether increased rates of recovery (or lack thereof) will be detectable without more precise survey methods applied over broad portions of the coast. Fishery data are also unlikely to produce conclusive information about the stock for the foreseeable future, due to retention prohibitions and active avoidance of yelloweye rockfish among all fleets. Considerable uncertainty regarding the time-series of historical catches was identified as a key source of uncertainty in the stock assessment.

At the Council's September 2009 meeting, the SSC cautioned

against using the stock assessment estimates of trends in abundance by region as the sole basis for the spatial allocation because the trend in abundance at the coastwide level was much more robust than at the regional level. The SSC emphasized the value of collecting biological data, such as age-length and maturation information, for yelloweye rockfish during the IPHC surveys.

The SSC endorsed the approach used to quantify uncertainty, which forms the basis for the yelloweye rockfish rebuilding analysis and they endorsed the use of the 2009 yelloweye rockfish assessment as the best available science for status determination and management in the Council process. The yelloweye rockfish OFL of 48 mt for 2011 and 2012 was based on the F
MSY
harvest rate proxy of F
50
%
as applied to the estimated exploitable biomass from the 2009 stock assessment.

ABC Policy

The proposed ABCs are consistent with the harvest specification framework proposed for Amendment 23 to the PCGFMP. Under Amendment 23, the term ABC is redefined to be an annual catch specification that is the stock or stock complex's OFL reduced by an amount associated with scientific uncertainty. Under the revised Magnuson-Stevens Act National Standard 1 guidelines, scientific advice that is relatively uncertain will result in ABCs that are relatively lower, all other things being equal,
i.e.,
a precautionary reduction in catch will occur due purely to scientific uncertainty. The ABC is the catch level that ACLs may not exceed. As explained in more detail below, the SSC recommended a two-step approach referred to as the P* approach initially for stocks with relatively data-rich stock assessments and ultimately for other stocks. In this approach, the SSC determines the amount of scientific uncertainty in a stock assessment, referred to as sigma. Then the Council determines the level of risk aversion to use, which is designated as the P*. The scientists then apply the P* value to the sigma value to determine the amount by which the OFL is reduced to establish the ABC.

In January 2009, the SSC's Groundfish and Coastal Pelagic Species Subcommittees met to discuss the new Magnuson-Stevens Act reauthorization requirements, including the development of a methodology for estimating scientific uncertainty in stock assessments. At this meeting, two types of uncertainty in biomass estimation were considered. The first was “within” assessment variability, which is presented in each stock assessment or stock assessment update and represented by the coefficient of variation for the terminal year biomass estimate. The second type of uncertainty is “among” assessment variation, resulting from a wide variety of factors, many of which represent a significant model or structural uncertainty. Reasons for “among” assessment variations in stock size estimation, includes differences in: The modeling software; the makeup of the analytical team doing the assessment; the composition of the review panel; changes in data availability; altered “priors” for the parameters; and changes in overall model structure. The SSC evaluated three methods of quantifying these types of scientific uncertainty, but also recognized that numerous other unaccounted for factors exist for which there is currently no method for meaningful analysis, including for example, the effects of climate and/or ecosystem interactions on the estimation of an OFL.

The general methodology used by the SSC subcommittees to assess among-assessment uncertainty was to compare previous stock assessments and stock assessment updates, and consider the logarithms of the ratios of the biomass estimates for each pair of assessments and their reciprocals using the last 20 years from an assessment. This provides a distribution of stock size differences in log-space and, if this variation is averaged over species, provides a general view of total biomass variation (represented as sigma—σ) that emerges among repeat assessments of stocks, while embracing a wide range of factors that affect variability in results. During their consideration of Amendment 23 to the PCGFMP, in March 2010, the SSC recommended the use of this methodology, but recognized that it was only the first step in the process of developing methods for estimating uncertainty in OFL, in part, because it only considers uncertainty in biomass and likely underestimates total variance. Going forward, the SSC indicated that it will be important to consider other sources of uncertainty, such as F
MSY
. While biomass is most likely the dominant source of uncertainty, it is anticipated that other factors will need to be considered in the future.

The SSC recommended the biomass variance statistic of sigma=0.36, from the analysis of stock assessments and stock assessment updates from 17 data rich stocks (meta-analysis). To set ABCs, the Council recommended using an approach where the SSC determines a value of sigma and the GMT uses the recommended formulation to translate sigma to a range of P* values (the probability of overfishing). Each P* is then mapped to its corresponding buffer fraction. The Council then determines the preferred level of risk aversion by selecting an appropriate P* value.

In cases where the P* approach is used, the upper limit of P* values considered will be 0.45. Since estimated OFLs are median estimates, there is a 50 percent probability that the OFL is overestimated or underestimated. A P* of 0.5 equates to no additional reduction for scientific uncertainty. In other words, the ABC is set equal to the OFL.

For the purposes of using the P* approach, the SSC assigned stocks to species categories. Using the P* approach, a scientific uncertainty buffer against overfishing can generally be determined for data rich species that have had quantitative stock assessments prepared (category 1 species). Since there is greater scientific uncertainty for category 2 and 3 stocks relative to category 1 stocks, the scientific uncertainty buffer is generally greater than that recommended for category 1 stocks. The SSC indicated that ideally the approach recommended for setting ABCs for category 1 stocks should also be applied to category 2 and 3 stocks. However, there is presently no analysis available for determining the appropriate value of sigma (σ) to represent scientific uncertainty for stocks in these categories, unlike the situation for category 1 stocks. In the absence of an analysis for category 2 and 3 stocks, the SSC suggested two interim approaches for computing ABCs from OFLs: Use 25 percent and 50 percent reductions from the OFL for deciding the ABC for category 2 and 3 stocks (similar to status quo), respectively; or use the P* approach using the σ values

for category 2 and 3 stocks recommended by the SSC. The SSC noted that their approach allows the Council to express their views on overfishing risk aversion. With a P* approach for deciding the ABC for category 2 and 3 stocks, the SSC recommended setting the value of sigma (σ) for category 2 and 3 stocks to 0.72 and 1.44 respectively (i.e., two and four times the σ for category 1 stocks). The difference between buffers determined using sigma values of 0.72 and 1.44 corresponds fairly closely to the difference between the buffers previously used for category 2 and 3 stocks (25 percent versus 50 percent) when P* is in the range 0.3 ~ 0.35. Although, the specific values of 0.72 and 1.44 are recommended by the SSC and considered to be the best available scientific information, the values are not based on a formal analysis of assessment outcomes and could change substantially when the SSC reviews additional analyses in future management cycles.

The Council approved the SSC-recommended σ values for each species category. For category 1 species the Council adopted a P* of 0.45, which combined with a sigma (σ) value of 0.36, corresponds with a reduction of 4.4 percent from the OFL when deriving the ABC. For healthy stocks, the P* of 0.45 is more risk averse than the policy used in the previous biennial management cycle in which the OYs for most healthy stocks were set at 100 percent of the ABC. The Council adopted a general policy of using a P* of 0.4 for category 2 and 3 stocks. The buffers determined using sigma (σ) values of 0.72 and 1.44 with a P* value of 0.40 corresponds to 16.7 percent, and 30.6 percent reductions, respectively. For the purpose of setting the ABCs in 2011 and 2012 the following category 1 species had a P* of 0.45 applied to the OFL to determine the ABC: Bocaccio south of 40°10′ north latitude, canary rockfish, darkblotched rockfish, Pacific Ocean Perch, widow rockfish, yelloweye rockfish, petrale sole, lingcod north of 42° N latitude (Oregon and Washington), Pacific whiting (U.S./Canada), sablefish (coastwide), chilipepper rockfish (coastwide), splitnose rockfish south of 40°10′ north latitude, yellowtail rockfish north of 40°10′ north latitude, shortspine thornyhead (coastwide), black Rockfish (Washington), black Rockfish (Oregon-California), California scorpionfish, cabezon (California), cabezon (Oregon), Dover sole, and English sole. For the purpose of setting the ABCs in 2011-2012, the following category 2 species had a P* of 0.40 and a sigma value of applied 0.72 applied to the OFL to determine the ABC: greenstriped rockfish, arrowtooth flounder, starry flounder, longspine thornyhead (coastwide), shortbelly rockfish, lingcod south of 42° north latitude (California), cowcod (Conception-Cowcod in the Monterey area are a category 3 stock) and longnose skate. For the purpose of setting the minor rockfish complex ABCs in 2011-2012, the ABCs for the sub-complexes are the sum of the component species ABCs. The SSC identified the appropriate species category for each component species: A sigma value of 0.36 for category 1 stocks (splitnose north, chilipepper rockfish north, gopher rockfish north of Pt. Conception, and blackgill rockfish), 0.72 for category 2 stocks (greenstriped rockfish, blue rockfish, and bank rockfish) and 1.44 for category 3 stocks. The P* value used to determine the ABCs for the component species in the minor rockfish complexes was 0.45. The resulting 2011 and 2012 ABCs for minor rockfish north are reduced by 11 percent from the OFL (nearshore-15 percent, shelf-11 percent, and slope-9 percent) and for the minor rockfish south are reduced by 13 percent (nearshore-14 percent, shelf-16 percent, and slope-8 percent). Like the minor rockfish complex ABCs, the “other flatfish” complex ABCs were derived from the sum of the component species, with all being category 3 species (σ=1.44/P*=0.4). For the “other fish” complex the ABC is a 24 percent reduction from the OFL σ=1.44/P*=0.4)for category 3 species. Tables 1a and 2a present the specifications for each stock while the footnotes to these tables describe how the proposed specifications were derived.

Vulnerability to Overfishing and Organization of Stock Complexes

The vulnerability of a stock to becoming overfished is defined in the National Standard 1 guidelines as a function of its productivity and its susceptibility to the fishery. The guidelines note that the “vulnerability” of fish stocks should be considered when: (1) Deciding if a stock considered to be “in the fishery” or if it is an ecosystem component stock; (2) considering the management of stocks managed within complexes and the need to re-structure the stock complexes; and (3) creating management control rules. The GMT and the NMFS Vulnerability Evaluation Work Group considered the productivity and susceptibility of each groundfish stock by providing productivity and susceptibility (PSA) scores for each stock. A score of 1 to 3 was identified for a set of attributes related to productivity and susceptibility. Currently there are 10 attributes for productivity that reflect stock life history and 12 attributes that reflect susceptibility to the impacts of fishing and management. Stocks with a low productivity score and a high susceptibility score were considered to be more vulnerable, while stocks with a high productivity score and low susceptibility score were considered to be less vulnerable.

In the consideration of stock complex structure, a four step approach for defining the relationship between fisheries and appropriate stock complexes was developed using the PSA score: (1) Calculate PSA scores for each species in the PCGFMP; (2) identify the overlap in distributions of each species based on latitude and depth range; (3) assign each species to the various fisheries; and (4) overlay the groupings onto the PSA plot. The GMT provided the PSA vulnerability scores for all of the Pacific coast groundfish and completed a cluster analysis based on latitude and depth to identify spatial overlaps. The results of the preliminary cluster analysis indicate that there is a need to adjust the assignment of PCGFMP stocks to complexes. The GMT concluded they could not complete the necessary analyses and discussion to fully implement the changes to stock complexes suggested by the National Standard 1 guidelines on the timeline for implementing Amendment 23 or these specifications.

The GMT explored using catch information to consider whether species that are not in the PCGFMP should be considered for inclusion as “in the fishery” or as “ecosystem component” species. By using NWFSC West Coast Observer Program mortality reports on the non-whiting trawl fishery in 2007 and 2008, and a simple method for expanding total catch, the GMT was able to roughly compare the relative magnitude of total catch of PCGFMP species versus species not in the PCGFMP. Based on this preliminary analysis of total catch information, the potential vulnerability scores of these non-PCGFMP species may be indistinguishable from those scores of species currently in the PCGFMP. Therefore, further consideration may be warranted in the future to decide if any of these species should be included in the PCGFMP as “in the fishery” or as an “ecosystem component” species. The GMT recommended revisiting the “in the fishery” classification following this biennial cycle, with consideration of

changes to stock complexes in the 2013-2014 biennial cycle.

OY Policies

The concept of OY remains in the PCGFMP, however, OYs will no longer be used as the annual limit on catch; instead, ACLs will be used for this purpose. As revisions to the National Standard 1 guidelines did not alter the definition of OY, which is defined as “the amount of fish that will provide the greatest overall benefit to the Nation, particularly with respect to food production and recreational opportunities and taking into account the protection of marine ecosystems; that is prescribed on the basis of the MSY from the fishery, as reduced by any relevant economic, social, or ecological factor; and, in the case of an overfished fishery, that provides for rebuilding to a level consistent with producing the MSY in such fishery,” that definition remains unchanged in the PCGFMP. OY may be expressed numerically (as a harvest guideline, quota, or other specification) or non-numerically. Beginning with the 2011 and 2012 harvest specifications, ACLs are intended to, over the long-term, meet the National Standard 1 guidelines of preventing overfishing while achieving, on a continuing basis, the optimum yield.

ACL Policy

ACLs are specified for each stock and stock complex that is “in the fishery” as specified under the proposed Amendment 23 framework. An ACL is a harvest specification set equal to or below the ABC to address conservation objectives, socioeconomic concerns, management uncertainty or other factors necessary to meet any management objectives. Sector-specific ACLs may be specified in cases where a sector has a formal, long-term allocation of the harvestable surplus of a stock or stock complex. All sources of fishing related mortality (tribal, commercial groundfish and non groundfish, recreational, and EFP) retained and discard mortality, plus research catch is accounted for within an ACL. In general, when recommending ACLs, the Council follows a risk-averse policy by recommending an ACL that is below ABC when there is a perception the stock is below its B
MSY,
or to accommodate management uncertainty, socioeconomic concerns, or other considerations.

Under the PCGFMP, the biomass level that produces MSY (B
MSY
) is defined as the precautionary threshold. When the biomass for a category 1 stock or stock complex falls below the precautionary threshold, the harvest rate will be reduced to help the stock return to the B
MSY
level. If a stock biomass is larger than B
MSY
, the ACL may be set equal to or less than ABC. Because B
MSY
is a long term average, the true biomass could be below B
MSY
in some years and above B
MSY
in other years. Even in the absence of overfishing, a biomass may decline to levels below B
MSY
due to natural fluctuations. Decreasing harvest rates below the ABC level when a biomass is estimated to be below B
MSY,
is a harvest control rule designed to prevent a stock or stock complex from becoming overfished.

The PCGFMP defines ACL harvest policies for category 1 species. The 40-10 harvest control rule has been applied to stocks with a B
MSY
proxy of 40 percent (B
40
%
) since 2000. A new harvest control rule referred to as the 25-5 harvest control rule is proposed for stocks with a B
MSY
proxy of 25 percent (B
25
%
). Consistent with the SSC recommendations, the new harvest control rule would be used for setting ACLs for flatfish species not managed under overfished species rebuilding plans when the biomass estimated from the stock assessment indicates that the stock has fallen below B
25
%
. The 25-5 rule works exactly like the 40-10 rule except that the ACL adjustment begins when the stock's depletion drops below B
25
%
and at B
5
%
, the ACL is set to zero. Like the 40-10 harvest control rule for stocks with an MSST proxy of B
40
%
, the 25-5 harvest control rule is designed to prevent stocks from becoming overfished. If a stock biomass is larger than the biomass needed to produce MSY (B
MSY
), the ACL may be set equal to or less than the ABC.

Under these harvest policies, when a stock's depletion level falls below B
MSY
(or the proxy for B
MSY
)
,
the stock is said to be in the “precautionary zone” or below the precautionary threshold. When a stock is below the precautionary threshold the harvest policies reduce the fishing mortality rate. The further the stock biomass is below the precautionary threshold, the greater the reduction in ACL relative to the ABC, until at B
10
%
for a stock with a B
MSY
proxy of B
40
%
or B
5
%
for a stock with a B
MSY
proxy of B
25
%
, when the OY would be set at zero. These harvest policies foster a quicker return to the B
MSY
level and serve as an interim rebuilding policy for stock that are below the overfished threshold (Below MSST—below B
25
%
for a stock with a B
MSY
proxy of B
40
%
or B
12.5
%
for a stock with a B
MSY
proxy of B
25
%
).

The Council may recommend setting the ACL higher than what the default ACL harvest control rule specifies as long as the ACL: Does not exceed the ABC; complies with the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act; and is consistent with the National Standard Guidelines. On a case-by-case basis, additional precautionary adjustments may be made to an ACL if necessary to address management uncertainty. The ACL serves as the basis for invoking AMs. 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. Additional AMs may include setting an ACT, which is a specified level of harvest below the ACL. The use of ACTs may be especially important for a stock subject to highly uncertain inseason catch monitoring. A sector-specific ACT may serve as a harvest guideline for a sector or may be used strategically in a rebuilding plan to attempt to reduce mortality of an overfished stock more than the rebuilding plan limits prescribe.

For category 2 and 3 species with only rudimentary stock assessments, the Council has the discretion to adjust the ACLs for uncertainty on a case-by-case basis. In cases where there is a high degree of uncertainty about the condition of the stock or stocks, the ACL may be reduced accordingly. Most category 3 species are managed in a stock complex (such as other flatfish, minor rockfish, and other fish) where harvest specifications are set for the complex in its entirety. For stock complexes, the ACL will be less than or equal to the sum of the individual component ABCs. The ACL may be adjusted below the sum of component ABCs as appropriate. For what are now being referred to as category 2 and 3 stocks, the Council's policy prior to this specification cycle was to set the OY at 75 percent of the ABC to account for stocks that have non-quantitative assessments and to set the OY at 50 percent of the ABC where the ABC is based on historical data. The previous adjustments were intended to address both scientific and management uncertainty. Because the ABC values for 2011 and 2012 are the OFLs reduced by scientific uncertainty, adjustment to the ACLs for additional uncertainty was made on a case-by-case basis.

If a stock is declared overfished, the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires the Council to develop a rebuilding plan within one year from the declaration date. The policies for setting ACLs for overfished species managed under rebuilding plans is described below in the section titled “Rebuilding Plan ACLs for Overfished Species”.

As discussed above, the Council's development of the 2011 and 2012 biennial harvest specifications began at Council's November 2009 meeting. Because Amendment 23 was under development while the ACL alternatives were being developed, some early ACLs under consideration by the Council were not consistent with Amendment 23 and were removed after the ABCs were specified (
i.e.
ACLs that exceeded the ABC). Other viable ACLs though lower than the ABC's developed under the Amendment 23 structure, are described in terms of pre-Amendment 23 language. The harvest specifications recommended by the Council and which are being implemented by this action are consistent with Amendments 23.

ACLS for “Healthy” and “Precautionary Zone” Species and Species Complexes

As stated above, the PCGFMP provides guidance on setting harvest specifications for category 1 stocks depending on the stock's estimated biomass level. For the following species or species complexes where there was no new scientific information including stock assessments or a management guidance change in the harvest strategy, the Council only considered a single annual ACL for 2011 and 2012: Pacific cod; chilipepper rockfish, yellowtail rockfish, shortspine thornyhead north of 34°27′ north latitude, black rockfish (Washington), black rockfish (Oregon/California), longnose skate, other flatfish, and other fish. The Council recommended final adoption of the ABC/OYs values for these species at its June 2010 meeting. The information that serves as the basis for the ACLs for these species can be found in the footnotes to Table 1a and Table 2a. Because there were new policies applicable or new information available, the Council considered alternative ACLs for the following non-overfished species: lingcod north of 42° north latitude; lingcod south of 42° north latitude; sablefish; shortbelly rockfish; shortspine thornyhead south of 34°27′ north latitude; longspine thornyhead north of 34°27′ north latitude; longspine thornyhead south of 34°27′ north latitude; California scorpionfish; cabezon (California); cabezon (Oregon); Dover sole; English sole; arrowtooth flounder; starry flounder; and minor rockfish complexes north and south of 40°10′ north latitude.

Pacific whiting is managed consistent with the U.S.-Canada agreement for Pacific whiting. ACLs for Pacific whiting are adopted on an annual basis after a stock assessment is completed just prior to the Council's March meeting. Accordingly, the Council recommended a range of ACLs for 2011 and 2012, and delayed adoption of final 2011 and 2012 OFLs, ABCs, and ACLs until the March 2011 and 2012 meetings, respectively. The DEIS for the 2011 and 2012 management measures considers a range for Pacific whiting ACLs and the resulting impacts.

Lingcod North and South

A lingcod stock assessment was prepared in 2009. The stock assessment was conducted as two separate stock assessments, one for the northern portion and one for the southern portion of the stock. For lingcod off of Washington and Oregon (the northern portion of the coastwide stock) the biomass was estimated to be at 62 percent of its unfished biomass, and for lingcod off of California (the southern portion) the biomass was estimated to be at 74 percent of its unfished biomass. Three ACL alternatives were considered for the north stock. Alternative 1, with an ACL of 1,219 mt in 2011 and 1,126 mt in 2012 was based on the 2009 stock assessment base model with a 50 percent reduction from the OFL (48 percent reduction from the ABC) for assessment uncertainty and overfished species bycatch concerns. Alternative 2, with an ACL of 2,172 mt in 2011 and 2,020 mt in 2012 was based on the low mortality model in the 2009 assessment. Alternative 3, with an ACL of 2,330 mt in 2011 and 2,151 mt in 2012, was based on the 2009 stock assessment base model with the ACL set equal to the ABC. Because lingcod is a healthy stock the Council recommended the ACL be set equal to the ABC (Alternative 3).

For lingcod south, three ACLs were considered. Alternative 1, with an ACL of 1,262 mt in 2011 and 1,299 mt in 2012, was based on the 2009 stock assessment base model with a 50 percent reduction from the OFL for assessment uncertainty and overfished species bycatch concerns. Alternative 2, with an ACL of 1,421 mt in 2011 and 1,531 mt in 2012, was based on the low mortality model in the 2009 assessment. Alternative 3, with an ACL of 2,102 mt in 2011 and 2,164 mt in 2012 was based on the 2009 stock assessment base model with the ACL set equal to the ABC. Because lingcod is a healthy stock, the Council recommended the ACL be set equal to the ABC (Alternative 3).

The trawl rationalization program, as approved by NMFS in Amendments 20 and 21, lists lingcod as an IFQ species with a coastwide area designation. Because these harvest specifications for lingcod are being recommended north and south of 42° north latitude as opposed to coastwide, NMFS anticipates that quota share for lingcod would need to be reallocated north and south of 42° N. lat. once the 2011-2012 harvest specifications and management measures are implemented through a final rule.

Sablefish

Sablefish is one of the most important species to the trawl and limited entry fixed gear fisheries. Management uncertainty for sablefish and the risk of overharvesting is considered to be low. This is because of the increased monitoring of the trawl fisheries that will occur under rationalization and because the limited entry fixed gear sector tends to under harvest their allocation. Therefore, when recommending the sablefish ACLs, the Council focused primarily on conservation concerns and stock status.

The 2007 coastwide sablefish stock assessment indicates the stock is at 36 percent of its unfished biomass and is therefore considered to be in the precautionary zone. The strength of the stock is reliant upon the strong 1999 and 2000 year classes, with the possibility of a strong incoming 2004 year class as well. The 2010 OY was previously set by applying a 40-10 harvest control rule to the coastwide ABC (in 2010 the ABC was equivalent to the OFL). The coastwide OY was then apportioned north and south of 36° north latitude, using the average 2003-2006 proportions of the swept-area biomass estimates of sablefish from the NWFSC shelf-slope trawl survey (72 percent north; 28 percent south). The OY south of 36° north latitude was then reduced by 50 percent to account for greater assessment and survey uncertainty in that area.

In determining the 2011-2012 ACLs for sablefish, the Council considered: (1) How to apply the 40-10 control rule since this stock is in the precautionary zone; (2) how to apportion the stock north and south of 36° north latitude; and (3) whether precautionary reductions were needed to the southern ACL to account for greater conservation concerns. Options were considered for applying the 40-10 harvest control rule directly to the OFL, resulting in coastwide ACLs of 8,485 in 2011 and 8,227 in 2012, and making the adjustment to the ABC resulting in ACLs of 7,296 mt in 2011 and 6,896 mt in 2012. The Council recommended the more risk-averse adjustment of applying the 40-10 reduction to the ABC resulting in a coastwide ACL of 8,110 mt for 2011 and 7,863 mt for 2012.

Historically, the coastwide sablefish OY was apportioned north and south of 36° North latitude by using historical

landings data (96.5 percent north and 3.5 percent south). However, beginning with the 2009-2010 harvest specifications and management measures process, the swept area biomass from the 2003-2006 combined NWFSC shelf/slope surveys were used to apportion the coastwide OY (72 percent north and 28 percent south). The Council considered apportioning the coastwide ACLs for 2011 and 2012 using the same proportions as in 2009-2010. When applied to the 2011 coastwide ACL of 8,110 mt this resulted in a 5,839 mt apportionment to the north and a 2,271 mt apportionment to the south. When applied to the 2012 coastwide ACL 7,863 mt it resulted in 5,839 mt apportionment to the north and a 2,271 mt apportionment to the south. Because new data were available from the 2007 and 2008 NWFSC shelf/slope surveys, the Council also considered apportioning the coastwide ACLs using averaged 2003-2008 data (68 percent north and 32 percent south) and using a weighted average with more weighing given to recent years (64 percent north and 36 percent south). When using averaged 2003-2008 data and applying it to the 2011 Coastwide ACL of 8,110 mt it resulted in a 5,515 mt to the north and 2,595 mt to the south and for 2012 when applied to the ACL of 7,863 mt it resulted in 5,347 mt to the north and 2,516 mt to the south. When using the weighted average of the 2003-2008 data and applying it to the 2011 Coastwide ACL of 8,110 mt it resulted in a 5,190 mt to the north and 2,920 mt to the south and for 2012 when applied to the ACL of 7,863 mt it resulted in 5,032 mt to the north and 2,832 mt to the south. The apportionment of biomass using the trawl survey data incorporates the best available information on the sablefish stock distribution. The Council recommended apportioning the 2011 and 2012 coastwide ACLs with 68 percent going to the north and 32 percent going to the south, based on using averaged 2003-2008 data.

To account for the uncertainty inherent in the abundance estimates of sablefish south of 36° north latitude (due to the short time-series of survey data from the southern area and advisory body advice), the Council recommended making a 50 percent reduction to the 2011 and 2012 southern apportionment of the coastwide ACLs of 2,595 mt and 2,516 mt, respectively, resulting in 2011 and 2012 ACLs for the area south of 36° north latitude of 1,298 mt and 1,258 mt, respectively. Even with the precautionary reduction in the southern area, the ACL is high relative to recent catches in the Conception Area. The Cowcod Conservation Area (CCA) closes a significant amount of the Conception Area to fishing and the area-swept biomass estimates for the Conception area are based on the assumption that catch rates outside of the CCAs are comparable to those inside (the survey does not sample within the CCAs).

Thornyheads

Shortspine and longspine thornyhead stocks have been assessed coastwide and projected harvest levels in the stock assessments are coastwide values. However, since 2008 each of the stocks has been managed with separate OYs for the areas north and south of Point Conception (34°27' north latitude). Separate ACLs are being adopted for shortspine thornyhead north and south of Point Conception, and longspine thornyhead north and south of Point Conception.

Only one ACL alternative, based on projections from the 2005 stock assessment and representing 66 percent of the coastwide ACL (the portion of the biomass estimated to occur north of Point Conception) was considered for shortspine thornyhead. Due to conservation concerns in the Conception area and a new specifications structure under proposed Amendment 23, two ACL alternatives, based on projections from the 2005 stock assessment, were considered for shortspine thornyhead south. Alternative 1 represented 34 percent (the portion of the biomass estimated to occur south of Point Conception) of the coastwide ACL, reduced by 50 percent for conservation concerns. Under Alternative 1 the ACLs were 405 mt in 2011 and 401 mt in 2012. Alternative 2 ACLs represented 34 percent of the coastwide ACL with no conservation reductions and were 811 mt in 2011 and 802 mt in 2012. The Council recommended a continuation of the added precautionary adjustment included under Alternative 1, and recommended ACLs of 405 mt in 2011 and 401 mt in 2012. The conservation concern is largely due to the fact that a small proportion of the Conception area is surveyed in the NMFS trawl survey given the high proportion of untrawlable habitat in the Conception area and the prohibition of bottom trawling in the Cowcod Conservation Areas. The conservation concern is specifically south of Point Conception (of 34°27′ north latitude) and is accommodated in consideration of the ACL for the shortspine thornyhead stock for the Conception area.

Two ACL alternatives, based on the most recent stock assessment (2005) were considered for longspine thornyhead north. Both ACL alternatives are based on the assumption that 79 percent of the coastwide biomass occurs north of Point Conception. Alternative 1 for the northern portion of the coastwide ACL, is a 10 percent reduction from the ABC for conservation uncertainty. Under Alternative 1 the ACLs were 2,119 mt in 2011 and 2,064 mt in 2012. Alternative 2 ACLs made the same assumption regarding stock distribution and represented 79 percent of the coastwide ACL based on projections from the 2005 stock assessment. The ACLs under Alternative 2 were 2,825 mt in 2011 and 2,751 mt in 2012. The Council recommended a continuation of the added precautionary adjustment included under Alternative 1 and the ACLs of 2,119 mt in 2011 and 2,064 mt in 2012.

Two ACL alternatives, based on the most recent stock assessment (2005), were considered for longspine thornyhead south. Alternative 1 assumed a constant density throughout the Conception area and represented 21 percent (the portion of the biomass estimated to occur north of Point Conception) of the coastwide ACL reduced by 50 percent for uncertainty. Under Alternative 1 the ACLs were 375 mt in 2011 and 366 mt in 2012. Alternative 2 ACLs made the same assumption regarding stock distribution and represented 21 percent of the coastwide ACL. The ACLs under Alternative 2 were 751 mt in 2011 and 731 mt in 2012. For similar reasons as for shortspine thornyhead south, but with a 40 percent reduction from the ABC, the Council recommended a continuation of the added precautionary adjustment included under For similar reasons as for shortspine thornyhead south, the Council recommended a continuation of the added precautionary adjustment included under Alternative 1 and recommended ACLs of 375 mt in 2011 and 366 mt in 2012.

Cabezon (California)

In recent years, the OY for Cabezon in waters off California was based on the California State Nearshore Management Plan which uses a F
MSY
proxy of F
50
%
and a 60-20 precautionary adjustment for stocks below B
60
%
(60 percent of the unfished biomass). This is in contrast to the PCGFMP F
MSY
proxy of F
45
%
percent for Cabezon. In light of the new ACL requirements for a more precautionary ABC that is reduced from the OFL for scientific uncertainty, the Council's advisory bodies recommended using the

40-10 adjustment to better align the California management strategy with the PCGFMP. Alternative 1 considered an ACL of 102 mt in 2011 and 105 mt 2012. Alternative 1 is based on the low mortality scenario from the 2009 stock assessment with a 40-10 reduction. Since scientific uncertainty is addressed in the ABC specification and the new assessment indicates a healthy stock status, the more risk averse ACL Alternative 1 was not considered necessary for managing California cabezon. Alternative 2 is the ACL set equal to the ABC and results in a 2011 ACL of 179 mt and a 2012 ACL of 168 mt. Following consideration by the Council, Alternative 2 was recommended. The cabezon fishery is managed by the State under the California nearshore fishery management plan. Implementation of the California fishery management plan included provisions to improve fishery monitoring and research data collection. Improved stock assessment modeling plus improved inseason data availability, as implemented under the California fishery management plan, are expected to substantially reduce uncertainty in management of the nearshore fishery. Therefore, additional reductions in the ACL below ABC to address management uncertainty were not recommended by the Council.

Cabezon (Oregon)

Following a 2009 stock assessment for cabezon off Oregon the SSC recommended removing the species from the “other fish” complex. The recreational sector was the main source of cabezon removals until the 1990s when hook and line and pot gear commercial fisheries began targeting cabezon. Cabezon has since become a valuable live-fish commercial fishery associated with higher live market prices. Given the small contribution relative to other species in the complex, removing cabezon in Oregon from the “other fish” complex will reduce the risk of overfishing.

Two ACL alternatives were considered for the cabezon stock off Oregon. Alternative 1 includes an ACL of 29 mt in 2011 and 2012, and was based on the results of the low mortality scenario in the 2009 stock assessment. Since scientific uncertainty is addressed in the ABC specification and the new assessment indicates a healthier stock, the more risk averse ACL alternative 1 was not considered necessary for managing Oregon cabezon. Alternative 2 was from the results of the base model and the 2009 stock assessment, with the ACL set equal to the ABC. This resulted in a 2011 ACL of 50 mt and a 2012 ACL of 48 mt. Following consideration by the Council, an ACL of 50 mt in 2011 and an ACL of 48 mt in 2012 was recommended. The cabezon fishery is managed by the State of Oregon under a limited entry nearshore permit program with a conservative management approach and a management history in which necessary action to stay within harvest specifications has been taken by the state.

California Scorpionfish

California Scorpionfish south of 34°27′ North latitude (Point Conception) was first assessed in 2005 and was estimated to be between 58 and 80 percent of its unfished biomass in 2005. For 2011 and 2012 the Council considered two ACL alternatives for California scorpionfish. Alternative 1 was based on the base model from the 2009 stock assessment with the 60-20 reduction from the California State Nearshore Management Plan. Alternative 1 resulted in a 2011 ACL of 133 mt and a 2012 ACL of 124 mt. The Alternative 2 ACLs of 135 mt in 2011 and 125 mt in 2012 are ACLs set equal to the ABC. The Council recommended setting the ACL equal to the ABC. Like cabezon, the California nearshore fishery management plan includes California scorpionfish which is a healthy stock, and is managed by the state under provisions for improved fishery monitoring and research data collection.

Dover Sole

Alternatives 1-3 are based on the results of the 2005 stock assessment, which estimated the Dover sole biomass to be at 59.8 percent of its unfished biomass in 2005 and was projected to be increasing. Alternative 1 is the 2010 OY which is based on the results of the 2005 assessment with an F
MSY
proxy of F
40%
. The Alternative 1 ACL of 16,500 mt is the MSY harvest level which is considerably larger than the coastwide catches in any recent years. Alternative 2 reflects the change in the F
MSY
harvest proxy from F
40%
to F
30%
for flatfishes. The MSY harvest level at F
30%
is 17,560 mt. Alternative 3 is based on the results of the 2005 assessment with an F
MSY
proxy of F
30%
, with the ACL set equal to the ABC, and was considered because the Dover sole stock biomass is above B
MSY
. Alternative 3 results in ACLs of 42,436 mt in 2011 and 42,843 mt in 2012. After consideration of these alternatives, the Council recommended an ACL of 25,000 mt for 2011 and 2012 which is intermediate to Alternatives 2 and 3. An ACL of 25,000 mt is higher than recent harvests yet substantially lower than the ABC. This is anticipated to provide increased harvest opportunities on healthy stocks for the new trawl ITQ program. With a trawl IFQ program fishers would allow opportunity within the constraints of the individual quota shares for both Dover sole and overfished species that co-occur with Dover sole within. The Council indicated that such opportunities were necessary at the start of the IFQ fishery to provide harvest opportunity.

English Sole

Two ACL alternatives were considered for English sole for 2011 and 2012. Alternative 1 is 7,158 mt and 5,790 mt in 2011 and 2012, respectively. These amounts, are based on the results of the 2007 assessment update with an F
MSY
proxy of F
40%
and the ACL set equal to the ABC. Alternative 2 reflects the change in the F
MSY
harvest proxy from F
40%
to F
30%
for flatfishes. The 2011 ACL of 19,761 mt and 2012 ACL of 10,150 mt under Alternative 2 are the ACLs set equal to the ABC. The Council recommended Alternative 2. English sole is a healthy stock that is primarily caught in the trawl fishery where individual allocations and improved catch accounting under an IFQ fishery are expected to reduce the management uncertainty.

Arrowtooth Flounder

Two ACL alternatives were considered for arrowtooth flounder in 2011 and 2012. The Alternative 1 ACLs are 9,109 mt in 2011 and 8,241 mt in 2012 and are based on the results of the 2007 assessment with an F
MSY
proxy of F
40%
and is the ACL set equal to the ABC. Alternative 2 reflects the change in the F
MSY
harvest proxy from F
40%
to F
30%
for flatfishes. The Alternative 2 ACL is set equal to the ABC and results in an ACL of 15,174 mt in 2011 and 12,049 mt in 2012. The Council recommended Alternative 2. Like English sole, arrowtooth flounder is a healthy stock that is primarily caught in the trawl fishery, where individual allocations and improved catch accounting under an IFQ fishery are expected to reduce the management uncertainty.

Starry Flounder

Starry Flounder was assessed for the first time in 2005 and was estimated to be above 40 percent of its unfished biomass in 2005. However, the stock was projected to decline in both the northern and southern areas. The starry flounder assessment was considered to be a data-poor assessment relative to other groundfish assessments. The

Alternative 1 ACL was based on the results of the 2005 stock assessment with an F
MSY
proxy of F
40%
and a 25 percent precautionary reduction from the ABC to account for management uncertainty. Alternative 1 results in ACLs of 1,130 mt in 2011 and 1,166 mt in 2012. Alternative 2 reflects the change in the F
MSY
harvest proxy from F
40%
to F
30%
for flatfishes and includes a 10 percent reduction from the ABC as a precautionary measure. Alternative 2 results in ACLs of 1,352 mt in 2011 and 1,360 mt in 2012. Alternative 3 reflects the change in the F
MSY
harvest proxy from F
40%
to F
30%
for flatfishes. Under Alternative 3 the ACL would be set equal to ABC. The resulting ACLs under Alternative 3 are 1,502 mt in 2011 and 1,511 mt in 2012. Following consideration of the ACLs, the Council recommended Alternative 2 with ACLs of 1,352 mt in 2011 and 1,360 mt in 2012.

Minor Rockfish North

In 2010, the ABC for each minor rockfish complex was the sum of the ABCs. To obtain the total catch OY for the complex, the “remaining rockfish” (species that have been assessed by less rigorous methods or stock assessments) ABCs were further reduced by 25 percent and “other rockfish” (species that do not have quantifiable stock assessments) ABCs were reduced by 50 percent. The complex OYs were then based on the sum of the OYs for the component species contributions. Sub-complex OYs, minor nearshore rockfish, minor shelf rockfish, and minor slope rockfish were also based on the sum of their component species contributions.

For 2011 and 2012, the Council recommended implementing the OFLs put forward by the SSC along with the SSC recommended ABC policies of using a sigma value and the Council recommended P* values. Substantial changes in minor nearshore north and minor shelf north harvest specifications from the 2010 levels resulted from the application of DB-SRA and the DCAC methods for determining OFLs for stocks that have not been assessed; the apportionment of catch north and south of 40°

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2010-26941. Public record. Not legal advice.