Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; Fisheries Off West Coast States and in the Western Pacific; Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery, 1998-2012 [06-209]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 8 (Thursday, January 12, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 1998-2012]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-209]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 660

[Docket No. 051213334-5334-01; I.D. 112905C]
RIN 0648-AS27


Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; Fisheries Off West Coast States 
and in the Western Pacific; Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery

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

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes a rule to implement Amendment 19 to the Pacific 
Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP). Amendment 19 provides 
for a comprehensive program to describe and protect essential fish 
habitat (EFH) for Pacific Coast Groundfish. The proposed management 
measures are intended to minimize, to the extent practicable, adverse 
effects to EFH from fishing. The measures include fishing gear 
restrictions and prohibitions, areas that would be closed to bottom 
trawl, and areas that would be closed to all fishing that contacts the 
bottom.

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule must be received by 5 p.m. local 
time February 27, 2006.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on this proposed rule identified by 
I.D. 112905C by any of the following methods:
     E-mail: GroundfishEFHproposedrule .nwr@noaa.gov Include ID 
112905C in the subject line of the message.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax: 206-526-6736, Attn: Steve Copps.
     Mail: D. Robert Lohn, Administrator, Northwest Region, 
NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, Seattle, WA 98115-0070, Attn: Steve 
Copps.
    Copies of Amendment 19, which includes a regulatory impact review 
(RIR/IRFA) and the Final Environmental Impact Statement--(FEIS) on EFH 
for Pacific Coast Groundfish and Amendment 19 to the Pacific Coast 
Groundfish FMP are available for public review during business hours at 
the office of the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Pacific 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 Pacific Council.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Copps (Northwest Region, NMFS), 
phone: 206-526-6140; fax: 206-526-6736 and; e-mail: 
steve.copps@noaa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access

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

Background

    Amendment 19 to the FMP has been developed by NMFS and the Pacific 
Council to comply with section 303(a)(7) of the Magnuson-Stevens 
Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by 
amending the Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP to: (1) Describe and identify 
EFH for the fishery, (2) designate Habitat Areas of Particular Concern 
(HAPAC), (3) minimize to the extent practicable the adverse effects of 
fishing on EFH, and (4) identify other actions to encourage the 
conservation and enhancement of EFH. This proposed rule is based on 
recommendations of the Pacific Council, under the authority of the 
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP and the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Background 
information and the Pacific Council's recommendations are summarized 
below. Further details are in the FEIS/RIR/IRFA prepared by NMFS for 
this action.
    NMFS considered the environmental effects of this action in an 
environmental impact statement (EIS) for the comprehensive strategy to 
conserve and enhance EFH for fish managed under the FMP. The notice of 
availability for the FEIS was published on December 9, 2005, (70 FR 
73233). The comprehensive strategy to conserve EFH, including its 
identification and the implementation of measures to minimize, to the 
extent practicable, adverse impacts to EFH from fishing is consistent 
with provisions in the Magnuson-Stevens Act and implementing 
regulations. The Magnuson-Stevens Act is the principal legal basis for 
Federal fishery management within the exclusive economic zone (EEZ), 
which extends

[[Page 1999]]

from the outer boundary of the territorial sea to a distance of 200 
nautical miles from shore.
    The EIS was prepared in order to comply with a 2000 court order in 
American Oceans Campaign et. al. v. Daley, Civil Action 99-982 (GK) 
(D.D.C. September 14, 2000). The Court ordered NMFS and the Pacific 
Council to prepare an EIS to evaluate the effects of fishing on EFH and 
identify and evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives for measures 
to minimize those impacts, to the extent practicable. The public 
comment period on the draft EIS ended on May 11, 2005. The Pacific 
Council identified a final preferred alternative at their June 13-17, 
2005, meeting in Foster City, CA. The FEIS includes the identification 
and evaluation of the final preferred alternative, responses to 
comments on the DEIS and appropriate revisions from the Draft 
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). After the FEIS is published, a 
30-day ``cooling off'' period ensues before the responsible official 
may sign a record of decision and implement the proposed action. NMFS 
must approve any amendments to the Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP 
amendment or implementing regulations it deems necessary by May 6, 
2006.
    The purpose of Amendment 19 is: First, to provide the Pacific 
Council and NMFS with the information they need to better account for 
the function of Pacific Coast groundfish EFH when making fishery 
management decisions; second, to ensure that this EFH is capable of 
sustaining groundfish stocks at levels that support sustainable 
fisheries; and third, to ensure that EFH is a healthy component of 
fully functioning ecosystems. The amendment is needed because the 
Pacific Council and NMFS have not had the tools to consider groundfish 
habitat and ecosystem function, and their relation to other biological 
and socioeconomic conditions affecting the groundfish fishery, in 
management decision-making. The Pacific Council considered draft 
amendatory language for the Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP at its 
September 19-23, 2005, meeting in Portland, OR, and finalized its 
recommendations at its October 30-November 4, 2005, meeting in San 
Diego, CA. On November 23, 2005, the Pacific Council transmitted 
Amendment 19 to NMFS, asking that NMFS make Amendment 19 available for 
public review via the Magnuson-Stevens Act review process. NMFS 
published a Notice of Availability for Amendment 19 on December 7, 2005 
(70 FR 72777), and will take public comments on Amendment 19 through 
February 6, 2006.
    In the Magnuson-Stevens Act, Congress found that ``one of the 
greatest long-term threats to the viability of commercial and 
recreational fisheries is the continuing loss of marine, estuarine, and 
other aquatic habitats'' and ``habitat considerations should receive 
increased attention for the conservation and management of fishery 
resources of the United States (16 U.S.C. 1801(a)(9)).'' Furthermore, 
one of the long-term goals for the groundfish fishery, adopted by the 
Pacific Council in its strategic plan, is ``to protect, maintain, and/
or recover those habitats necessary for healthy fish populations and 
the productivity of those habitats.'' This proposed rule provides the 
management measures that are being considered under Amendment 19 to the 
FMP that are intended to minimize to the extent practicable adverse 
impacts to EFH.

EFH Identification and Description in Amendment 19

    The Pacific Council is required to identify and describe EFH for 
all managed species based on a scientific process to determine the 
extent of habitat that is essential for managed species throughout 
their life history. EFH is defined by the Magnuson-Stevens Act to mean 
those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, 
feeding, or growth to maturity (16 U.S.C. 1802 (10)). EFH 
identification and description provides the basis for the statutory 
requirement for Federal agencies to consult on actions that may 
adversely affect EFH and provides geographic focus for development of 
conservation strategies. EFH is identified and described in an 
amendment to the Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP and does not require 
implementation through regulation; however, the EFH description is 
summarized in this proposed rule due to its connection to proposed 
management measures.
    The identification and description of EFH does not in and of itself 
have direct effects on habitat, the status of groundfish stocks, or the 
ecosystem; however, the geographic focus it provides can serve as a 
tool for managers to focus conservation efforts and stewardship over 
the habitat component of groundfish resources. Section 303(a)(7) of the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that adverse effects from fishing on EFH 
must be minimized to the extent practicable and other actions 
encouraged that would conserve and enhance such habitat. In addition, 
the identification and description of EFH provides the basis for the 
consultation process as described in section 305(b) of the Magnuson-
Stevens Act, which states that Federal action agencies must consult 
with NMFS on any action that may adversely affect EFH. Identification 
and description of EFH is a management tool that is the starting point 
for considering EFH conservation and enhancement.
    Under Amendment 19 to the Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP, the overall 
extent of groundfish EFH for all fishery management unit species is 
identified as all waters and substrate within the following areas:
     Depths less than or equal to 3,500 m (1,914 fm) shoreward 
to the mean higher high water level or the upriver extent of saltwater 
intrusion (defined as upstream and landward to where ocean-derived 
salts measure less than 0.5 parts per thousand during the period of 
average annual low flow).
     Seamounts in depths greater than 3,500 m (1,914 fm), as 
mapped in the EFH assessment geographic information system.
    This includes 187,741 square miles in the EEZ, and to the mean 
higher high water line and upriver extent of salt water, as EFH.
    To identify EFH, NMFS gathered all available information on 
location of groundfish species, and then used a model to determine the 
relationship between the location of the fish and information including 
substrate, estuaries, kelp, seagrass, invertebrates, bathymetry, 
latitude, pelagic habitat, and available literature on functional 
relationships between fish and habitat. This allowed NMFS and the 
Pacific Council to consider a large amount of information regarding 
where groundfish are found and their habitat associations. NMFS and the 
Pacific Council also considered the rebuilding needs of overfished 
groundfish species managed under the Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP. Even 
though NMFS had a huge amount of information available that it 
considered, there still are data gaps and NMFS was not able to quantify 
the relationship between habitat and groundfish abundance. Therefore, 
the preferred alternative takes a precautionary approach that defines 
EFH as moderately exceeding known areas where groundfish occur. This 
precautionary approach is intended to account for any possible errors 
in the model. Maps and text descriptions of EFH are also included in 
Amendment 19 to the Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP.

HAPC in Amendment 19

    Although the Magnuson-Stevens Act does not require Councils to 
designate HAPCs, NMFS encourages them to do

[[Page 2000]]

so, based on one or more of the following considerations from the EFH 
regulations at 50 CFR 600.815(a)(8): (1) The importance of the 
ecological function provided by the habitat; (2) the extent to which 
the habitat is sensitive to human-induced environmental degradation; 
(3) whether, and to what extent, development activities are, or will 
be, stressing the habitat type; and, (4) the rarity of the habitat 
type.
    The Pacific Council and NMFS are considering designation of 
estuaries, canopy kelp, seagrass, rocky reefs, areas of interest, and 
oil production platforms as HAPCs through Amendment 19 to the Pacific 
Coast Groundfish FMP. The amendment was developed by the Pacific 
Council and NMFS to meet the four considerations listed in the EFH 
regulations. The HAPCs, if approved, will be designated through 
Amendment 19 to the FMP and do not require rulemaking, so are not 
considered further in this proposed rule. Copies of the FMP amendment 
are available through NMFS (see ADDRESSES).

Minimization of Adverse Impacts From Fishing

    The Magnuson-Stevens Act mandates that the Pacific Coast Groundfish 
FMP contain measures to minimize to the extent practicable adverse 
effects from fishing on EFH. The EFH guidelines establish that Councils 
must act to minimize to the extent practicable adverse effects from 
fishing when such effects are more than minimal and temporary in nature 
(50 CFR 600.815). Adverse effect means any impact that reduces the 
quality and/or quantity of EFH. Adverse effects may include direct or 
indirect physical, chemical, or biological alterations of the waters or 
substrate and loss of, or injury to, benthic organisms, prey species 
and their habitat, and other ecosystem components, if such 
modifications reduce the quality and/or quantity of EFH. Adverse 
effects to EFH may result from actions occurring within EFH or outside 
EFH, and may include site-specific or habitat-wide impacts, including 
individual, cumulative, or synergistic consequences of actions (50 CFR 
600.810).
    NMFS and the Pacific Council undertook an assessment process to 
determine if and where adverse effects to EFH have occurred or are 
occurring. As a result of the assessment process, NMFS determined that 
the best available information is not sufficient to support a 
definitive determination of adverse effects on EFH from fishing. 
However, based on all the information available regarding impacts of 
fishing, NMFS and the Pacific Council concluded there is a potential 
for adverse effects. Therefore, NMFS is proposing certain management 
measures that would protect EFH from potential adverse effects of 
fishing. It is practicable to take precautionary action to protect EFH 
because the proposed management measures would protect EFH and have 
insignificant socioeconomic consequences.
    The central constraint for determining if adverse impacts have 
occurred or are occurring is insufficient data of the necessary 
resolution to model a relationship between the intensity of fishing 
effort and effects on habitat. Three variables are fundamental to 
assessing the status of habitat: The locations and intensity of fishing 
impacts, the sensitivity of specific habitat types to specific impacts 
at differing levels of intensity, and the potential for habitat to 
recover between impact events. Each of the habitat types on the West 
Coast is likely to react differently to different types and intensity 
of impact and have unique rates of recovery. The status of habitat is a 
balance between how the habitat was affected by an impact and how much 
recovery takes place between impacts. Although it is not possible at 
this time to quantify the status of habitat, several principles were 
utilized as the environmental basis for the management measures as 
follows: (1) Habitat that has not been subject to impact is considered 
pristine; (2) the sensitivity of habitat to impact governs the rate at 
which adverse effects occur (e.g., highly sensitive habitat is subject 
to adverse effect with relatively little fishing effort); (3) there is 
a maximal level of impact for any given habitat at which no further 
adverse effects would occur; (4) habitat has a limited capacity to 
recover from impact, and recovery is ongoing from some point in time 
after the impact ceases; (5) repeated contact with fishing gear will 
cause the status of habitats to become more impacted while recovery 
between contacts allows the habitat to become less impacted; (6) 
adverse impacts to habitat can impair the ability of fish to carry out 
basic biological functions such as spawning, feeding, breeding, and 
growth to maturity; and (7) large-scale modification to habitat may 
have long-lasting or permanent implications at the scale of the 
ecosystem.
    Known effects of fishing on EFH are focused on physical alteration 
to habitat and changes in biodiversity that result from impact. It is 
not known if or to what extent such effects alter the dynamics of fish 
stocks. The relevance of this limitation is that management measures 
cannot be quantitatively constructed to increase production of 
groundfish or enhance ecosystem function. Even with this data 
limitation, NMFS is able to base the management measures on the 
potential adverse effects of fishing on EFH.
    Fish, like all organisms, rely on habitat for their survival. The 
habitat requirements of many fish change depending on the life history 
stage. Pacific coast rockfish, for example, spend their early life 
history as eggs and larvae floating in the water column before settling 
as juveniles on the substrate, where they grow to maturity and 
reproduce. Although its value cannot be quantified, healthy functioning 
habitat is critical for populations of fish to sustain themselves and 
there is a level at which adverse impacts to habitat will impair the 
ability of fish to do so. Benthic and pelagic habitats are fundamental 
components of the ecosystems off the West Coast as are the fish and 
other organisms that rely on them. It follows that large-scale 
modification to habitat can result in fundamental change to the 
ecosystem. For example, if a complex habitat that supports reproduction 
of a species is modified to the point that the species can no longer 
reproduce successfully there, and the species is unable to adapt and 
reproduce elsewhere, the survival of the species and its role in the 
ecosystem would be threatened. The extent of the threat would depend on 
the extent of the modification (e.g., all of the habitat non-functional 
or just a portion), and the related ability of the habitat to recover 
and/or the species to adapt to alternative habitats. Some habitats may 
take a long time to recover or may reach an alternative stable state 
from which a return to its former state is highly unlikely, even 
following a complete removal of impacts, and thus evolve into a new 
role in the ecosystem.
    NMFS and the Pacific Council considered fishing gear restrictions 
and area closures as the primary tools for minimizing adverse effects 
to EFH based on a report by the National Academy of Sciences, National 
Research Council. These measures directly control where impacts may 
occur and the type of impact, based on gear type, that would be 
allowed.\1\ Gear types were ranked for their potential to have adverse 
effects in the following order: (1) Bottom-tending mobile gear types 
(e.g., bottom trawl in which the otter boards or the footrope of the 
net are in contact with the seabed) and (2) other gears that contact 
the

[[Page 2001]]

bottom. Gear types that do not contact the bottom were not prioritized. 
Pristine benthic habitat was prioritized with an emphasis on biogenic 
habitat (e.g., deep sea corals) as was hard bottom due to its potential 
ecological complexity and sensitivity to impact. NMFS also conducted a 
literature review of the best available information to determine 
impacts on EFH from fishing gear. This information is provided in the 
EIS and is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES). The EIS considers 
impacts from the gear types that are used off the West Coast. The 
information available on impacts from fishing gear is primarily from 
other areas of the world and not the West Coast. Although the 
information is from other areas of the world, it was considered in the 
context of West Coast habitat and gear types and provides a solid basis 
for determining there is a potential for adverse impacts on EFH.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ NRC (National Research Council). 2002. Effects of Trawling 
and Dredging on Seafloor Habitat. National Academy Press, 
Washington, DC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NMFS and the Pacific Council worked closely with environmental 
groups and the fishing industry to determine appropriate gear 
restrictions and area closures to minimize adverse effects on EFH and 
with minimal negative socioeconomic effects. The selection of the 
specific closed areas was an iterative process with many opportunities 
for public input through Pacific Council meetings, local outreach 
meetings, and comments on the DEIS. The closed areas proposed here are 
based on all the above input and a collaborative process involving 
Oceana; groundfish trawl fishermen, organized by the Fishermen's 
Marketing Association; the Fisheries Heritage Group, bringing together 
harbor managers, the Nature Conservancy, Environmental Defense, the 
Center for Future Oceans, and fisheries representatives; Pacific 
Council advisory bodies; and West Coast states. By combining the 
perspectives of these groups, the management measures are practicable 
because they implement the mandate to conserve EFH while taking into 
account the effects on fishing communities.

Proposed Management Measures in Amendment 19

    NMFS and the Pacific Council developed a suite of management 
measures that include gear restrictions and area closures. The gear 
restrictions are as follows: (1) Bottom trawl gear with footropes 
larger than eight inches (20 cm) in diameter is prohibited shoreward of 
a line approximating the 100-fm (183 m) depth contour; (2) the use of 
bottom trawl footrope gear with a footrope diameter larger than 19 
inches (48 cm) is prohibited; (3) the use of dredge gear is prohibited; 
and (4) the use of beam trawl gear is prohibited.
    The Pacific Council has identified discrete areas that are closed 
to fishing with specified gear types. These ecologically important 
habitat closed areas are intended to minimize to the extent practicable 
the adverse effects of fishing on groundfish EFH. There are two types 
of closures. First are areas where bottom trawling would be prohibited. 
Second are areas where bottom-contacting gears would be prohibited. The 
extent and configuration of these areas do not vary seasonally and they 
are not usually modified through inseason or biennial management 
actions and may be considered Marine Managed Areas. The areas are 
listed below and described in the attached regulatory text by specific 
latitude and longitude coordinates.
    Areas off the coast of Washington where bottom trawling would be 
prohibited are:
    Olympic 2; Biogenic 1; Biogenic 2; Grays Canyon; and, Biogenic 3.
    Areas off the coast of Oregon where bottom trawling would be 
prohibited are: Nehalem Bank/Shale Pile; Astoria Canyon; Siletz 
Deepwater; Daisy Bank/Nelson Island; Newport Rockpile/Stonewall Bank; 
Heceta Bank; Deepwater off Coos Bay; Bandon High Spot; Rogue Canyon.
    Areas off the coast of California where bottom trawling would be 
prohibited include: Eel River Canyon; Blunts Reef; Mendocino Ridge; 
Delgada Canyon; Tolo Bank; Pt Arena South Biogenic Area; Biogenic Area; 
Pt Arena South Biogenic Area; Farallon Islands/Fanny Shoal; Half Moon 
Bay; Monterey Bay/Canyon; Point Sur Deep; Big Sur Coast/Port San Luis; 
East Santa Lucia Bank; Point Conception; Potato Bank; Cherry Bank; 
Hidden Reef/Kidney Bank; Catalina Island; and Cowcod Conservation Area 
East.
    Areas off Oregon where bottom contact gear would be prohibited 
include: Thompson Seamount; and President Jackson Seamount.
    Areas off California where bottom contact gear would be prohibited 
include: Cordell Bank (50 fm (91 m) isobath); Anacapa Island MCA; 
Anacapa Island MR; Carrington Point; Footprint; Gull Island; Harris 
Point; Judith Rock; Painted Cove; Richardson Rock; Santa Barbara; 
Scorpion; Skunk Point; and South Point. Bottom contact gear at Davidson 
seamount would also be prohibited with all fishing prohibited below 500 
fm (914 m) as a precautionary adjustment to protect the seamount.

Summary of Rationale for the Proposed Managed Areas

    Since there may be adverse impacts on EFH from fishing, NMFS has 
made a preliminary determination that it is necessary to take 
precautionary action to protect EFH from the possible adverse impacts 
of fishing. NMFS has concluded that there is a potential for adverse 
impacts from fishing activities, based on the TRC report, and other 
literature used in the appendices to the EIS, although these impacts 
cannot be specifically identified for EFH for groundfish. As a result, 
NMFS is proposing to minimize to the extent practicable, these 
unidentified impacts in the event that the regulated fishing activities 
do have an adverse impact on EFH that is more than minimal and not 
temporary. Additionally, these measures are practicable because they 
have minimal impact on the fishery. The gear closures are mainly in 
areas that are not currently being fished, and for areas that would 
require the industry to shift its location, the effect would be on 
roughly less than 10 percent of the fishery. That amount of effort is 
likely to be able to relocate so the net effect would be for little 
change in overall catch.
    After reviewing the best available scientific information, NMFS 
cannot positively state that any adverse impacts on EFH from the 
groundfish fishery are occurring. Conversely, NMFS cannot positively 
state that there are no adverse impacts to EFH from fishing activities. 
NMFS does have reason to suspect that, based on general knowledge of 
the impacts of certain gear types used in this fishery, adverse impacts 
may be occurring. Based on this potential that adverse impacts are 
occurring but have not been identified, NMFS believes that it is 
necessary and appropriate to ensure that measures are taken to minimize 
to the extent practicable any unidentified adverse impacts to EFH that 
may exist.
    In summary, at this time NMFS and the Pacific Council are not able 
to make a definitive determination that adverse effects from fishing to 
EFH have occurred or are occurring. However, we have taken a 
precautionary approach, based on the best available science, to 
developing the alternatives based on the potential for adverse effects 
to EFH. The precautionary approach is practicable because it protects 
EFH from potential adverse effects and does not significantly adversely 
affect the fishing industry and associated communities.

Specific Request for Additional Comments and Information

    A coastwide prohibition on bottom trawling in all areas within the 
EEZ that

[[Page 2002]]

are deeper than 700 fm (1280) is also included in the proposed 
regulation. NMFS is specifically seeking comment on this aspect of the 
regulation as well as the gear restrictions described above because 
they would apply in areas deeper than 3500 m (1914 fm), and, therefore, 
would be outside EFH. Management measures to minimize adverse impacts 
on EFH could apply in the EEZ in areas not described as EFH, if there 
is a link between the fishing activity and adverse effects on EFH. 
Additionally, management measures could be based on the Pacific 
Council's discretionary authority to protect habitat outside EFH if 
there is a basis for these measures. This authority is based on section 
303(a)(1), 303(b)(2), and (b)(12) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. NMFS 
will consider public comments and information received on this proposed 
rule and on the proposed Amendment 19 to determine if the measures 
should be applied in areas outside EFH (deeper than 3500 m (1914 fm)).

Practicability of the Management Measures

    Section 303(a)(7) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that FMPs 
minimize to the extent practicable the adverse effects of fishing on 
EFH. EFH regulations at 50 CFR 600.815(a)(2)(iii) state that: In 
determining whether it is practicable to minimize an adverse effect 
from fishing, Councils should consider (1) the nature and extent of the 
adverse effects on EFH and (2) the long-and short-term costs and 
benefits of potential management measures to EFH, associated fisheries, 
and the nation, consistent with National Standard 7. In determining 
whether management measures are practicable, Councils are not required 
to perform a formal cost/benefit analysis.
    The management measures in this proposed rule provide a balance of 
socioeconomic costs and benefits to the fishing industry and 
communities, impacts to management and enforcement agencies, and 
protection of EFH. This suite of impact minimization measures protects 
a diverse set of habitat types and is most heavily focused on the 
bottom trawl sector by excluding areas from bottom trawling. Other 
fishing gears are also excluded or limited depending on the habitat, 
the geographic area, opportunities for research in those areas in order 
to further the science and management of habitat, and the amount of 
information known about areas and gear/habitat interaction.
    Although the proposed management measures close certain areas to 
bottom trawling and other bottom tending gear types, these measures do 
not reduce catch quotas. Harvest put at risk by closed areas may be 
made up elsewhere within the EEZ. If closing certain areas to certain 
gear types appears to impact catch, then as a regular part of inseason 
management, the Pacific Council could be reasonably expected to 
increase vessel catch limits and recreational opportunities so that the 
fisheries may achieve, but not exceed allowable harvest levels. 
However, the more effort and revenue is displaced, the more likely it 
is that displaced revenues and effort will also translate into lost 
revenue and effort. Additional information on practicability and the 
socioeconomic impacts of the management measures is contained in the 
Classification section below.

Enforcement

    Using traditional enforcement methods (aerial surveillance, 
boarding at sea via patrol boats, landing inspections and documentary 
investigation) is especially difficult for monitoring closed areas when 
those areas are large-scale. Furthermore, when management measures 
allow some gear types and target fishing in all or a portion of the 
closed area, while other fishing activities are prohibited, it is 
difficult and costly to effectively enforce closures using traditional 
methods. Scarce state and Federal resources also limit the use of 
traditional enforcement methods. For these reasons, the Pacific Council 
recommended as part of its preferred alternative in the EIS that all 
trawl vessels be required to carry and use vessel monitoring system 
(VMS) units. A VMS is a NMFS approved mobile transceiver unit that 
automatically determines a vessel's position for enforcement monitoring 
by NMFS, Office of Law Enforcement. In 2004, NMFS implemented a VMS 
requirement for limited entry fishery participants in order to maintain 
the integrity of the Rockfish Conservation Areas (RCAs) and their 
benefits to rebuilding overfished groundfish species. Concurrent with 
its work on Amendment 19, the Pacific Council also developed 
recommendations to expand VMS requirements to the open access 
groundfish fisheries to maintain the integrity of the RCAs in those 
fisheries. When the Pacific Council took final action on VMS 
requirements in the open access fisheries, it also recommended that 
NMFS implement VMS requirements for the non-groundfish trawl vessels 
that would be affected by the trawl gear area prohibitions in Amendment 
19. NMFS is developing a proposed rule for publication in early 2006 
that would expand the VMS program requirements to include all open 
access vessels that take and retain, possess, or land groundfish, as 
well as all non-groundfish trawl vessels--including those targeting 
pink shrimp, California halibut, sea cucumber, and ridgeback prawn. The 
VMS expansion action and this Amendment 19 action will be managed so 
that implementation is as nearly concurrent as possible; however, 
implementation of this proposed rule for Amendment is not contingent on 
expansion of the VMS program.

Classification

    These proposed management measures are issued under the authority 
of, and are in accordance with, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Pacific 
Coast Groundfish FMP, and 50 CFR parts 600 and 660 subpart G (the 
regulations implementing the Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP).
    NMFS and the Pacific Council prepared a DEIS and an FEIS for this 
proposed action; NMFS published a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an 
EIS on April 10, 2001 (66 FR 18586). According to the NOI, the EIS 
would evaluate the Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP from a broad, 
programmatic perspective, presenting ``an overall picture of the 
environmental effects of fishing as conducted under Pacific Coast 
Groundfish FMP.'' However, as a result of this initial public scoping, 
NMFS decided the process would be improved if the programmatic 
evaluation of the Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP were shifted to two 
separate EISs, one on bycatch minimization and one on EFH issues (67 FR 
5962, February 8, 2002). A copy of the draft EIS is available on the 
Internet at: https://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Groundfish-Halibut/Groundfish-
Fishery-Management/NEPA-Documents/Index.cfm.
    This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for 
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
    Pursuant to Executive Order 13175, this rule was developed after 
meaningful consultation and collaboration with tribal officials from 
the area covered by the Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP. NMFS does not 
intend for any of the regulations described below to apply to tribal 
fisheries in usual and accustomed grounds described in 50 CFR 
660.324(c). NMFS will continue to work with the tribes towards the goal 
of ensuring that, within their usual and accustomed fishing grounds, 
adequate measures are in place to protect EFH.
    NMFS prepared an IRFA that describes the impact that this proposed 
rule, if adopted, would have on small

[[Page 2003]]

entities. A description of the action, why it is being considered, and 
the legal basis for this action are contained at the preamble to this 
document. A copy of this analysis is available from NMFS (see 
ADDRESSES). A summary of the analysis follows.
    NMFS is proposing regulations to minimize to the extent practicable 
adverse impacts from fishing to EFH. The proposed regulations include 
restrictions on the type of fishing gear that may be used and the 
establishment of specific areas that would be closed to specified gear 
types. The action is fully described in the preamble to this proposed 
rule.
    The entities that would be directly regulated by this action are 
those that operate vessels fishing for groundfish, California and 
Pacific halibut, crab and lobster, shrimp, and species like groundfish 
such as California sheephead and white croaker in Federal EEZ waters 
off of the Pacific coast. Although harvest and gross revenue 
information is confidential for individual vessels, all shorebased 
vessels fishing off the Pacific coast are considered small entities for 
purposes of this IRFA. Although the number of vessels engaged in 
Pacific coast fisheries will vary by year, the average is approximately 
3,800 to 4,300. Of these, approximately 1,500 to 1,200 participate in 
groundfish fisheries; 1,200 to 1,400 participate in crab fisheries; and 
215 to 330 participate in shrimp fisheries, and many of these vessels 
participate in all three fisheries. Many vessels participating in these 
fisheries will be directly regulated by the proposed rule.
    A total of 23 alternatives (including sub-options and the final 
preferred alternative) to minimize fishing impacts to EFH were analyzed 
within the FEIS. A brief description of the alternatives analyzed and 
considered in addition to the preferred alternative is described below. 
For a more complete description of the alternatives, see chapter 2 of 
the FEIS. Five of the alternatives were designed to accomplish the 
objective of protecting EFH while minimizing economic impacts on small 
entities. These include three alternatives designed to close areas to 
trawling that are were analyzed to be non-critical to the economic 
future of the trawl industry based on historical trawling patterns, an 
alternative to prohibit geographic expansion of the trawl fishery 
(e.g., limiting the fishery to historically valuable areas), and an 
alternative to close specified areas and compensate impacted fishermen 
through private purchase of their permits. The final preferred 
alternative includes components that were compiled from discrete 
elements of the other alternatives. A detailed description of all the 
alternatives is available in the FEIS for this action (see ADDRESSES).
    Each of the alternatives analyzed by NMFS was expected to have 
different overall effects on the economy. The only consistent measure 
of gross revenue impacts is an analysis of limited entry trawl revenues 
that would be displaced by the alternatives. The proposed management 
measures in this rule would displace $8,523,085 over a 4-year period. 
The other alternatives would have impacts ranging from $58,458,226 to 
$0 for no action. In addition, a qualitative analysis of the 
alternatives was performed. The final preferred alternative was 
determined to have the most acceptable socioeconomic impact on 
commercial fishers, recreational fishers, and communities. In general, 
the proposed management measures are not expected to significantly 
curtail harvesting opportunities. Over the long-term, the measures may 
improve harvesting opportunities by enhancing the productivity of 
harvestable fish stocks.
    The proposed management measures would result in the protection of 
over 67,000,000 hectares of habitat found in the U.S. exclusive 
economic zone off the West Coast of the U.S. This represents over 81 
percent of the EEZ. Other alternatives analyzed in the FEIS protected 
amounts of habitat that are similar in quantity, but can be considered 
impracticable for various reasons. Of the alternatives protecting 
similar amounts of habitat, one is considered impracticable to 
administrative agencies because of the complexity of implementing the 
alternative, and one is considered impracticable because it would close 
the Dungeness crab fishery. The others were modified to reduce 
socioeconomic impacts to acceptable levels and included as part of the 
preferred alternative.
    NMFS issued Biological Opinions (BOs) under the Endangered Species 
Act on August 10, 1990, November 26, 1991, August 28, 1992, September 
27, 1993, May 14, 1996, and December 15, 1999, analyzing the effects of 
the groundfish fishery on chinook salmon (Puget Sound, Snake River 
spring/summer, Snake River fall, upper Columbia River spring, lower 
Columbia River, upper Willamette River, Sacramento River winter, 
Central Valley, California coastal), coho salmon (Central California 
coastal, southern Oregon/northern California coastal, Oregon coastal), 
chum salmon (Hood Canal, Columbia River), sockeye salmon (Snake River, 
Ozette Lake), and steelhead (upper, middle and lower Columbia River, 
Snake River Basin, upper Willamette River, central California coast, 
California Central Valley, south-central California, northern 
California, and southern California). During the 2000 Pacific whiting 
season, the whiting fisheries exceeded the chinook bycatch amount 
specified in the most recent Biological Opinion's (whiting BO) 
(December 19, 1999) incidental catch statement estimate of 11,000 fish, 
by approximately 500 fish. In the 2001 whiting season, however, the 
whiting fishery's chinook bycatch was about 7,000 fish, which 
approximates the long-term average. After reviewing data from, and 
management of, the 2000 and 2001 whiting fisheries (including industry 
bycatch minimization measures), the status of the affected listed 
chinook, environmental baseline information, and the incidental catch 
statement from the 1999 whiting BO, NMFS determined in a letter dated 
April 25, 2002, that a re-initiation of consultation for the whiting 
fishery was not required. NMFS has concluded that implementation of the 
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP for the Pacific Coast groundfish fishery 
is not expected to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered 
or threatened species under the jurisdiction of NMFS, or result in the 
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. This action is 
within the scope of these consultations.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 660

    Administrative practice and procedure, American Samoa, Fisheries, 
Fishing, Guam, Hawaiian Natives, Indians, Northern Mariana Islands, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: December 28, 2005.
James W. Balsiger,
Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National 
Marine Fisheries Service.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS proposed to amend 50 
CFR part 660 as follows:

PART 660--FISHERIES OFF WEST COAST STATES AND IN THE WESTERN 
PACIFIC

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

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    2. In Sec.  660.301, paragraph (a) is revised as follows:

[[Page 2004]]

Sec.  660.301  Purpose and scope.

    (a) This subpart implements the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery 
Management Plan (PCGFMP) developed by the Pacific Fishery Management 
Council. This subpart governs fishing vessels of the U.S. in the EEZ 
off the coasts of Washington, Oregon, and California. All weights are 
in round weight or round-weight equivalents, unless specified 
otherwise.
* * * * *
    3. In Sec.  660.302, a definition for ``Essential Fish Habitat 
EFH'' is added in alphabetical order, and the definition for ``Fishing 
gear'' is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  660.302  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). (See Sec.  600.10).
* * * * *
    Fishing gear includes the following types of gear and equipment:
    (1) Bottom contact gear. Fishing gear designed or modified to make 
contact with the bottom. This includes, but is not limited to, beam 
trawl, bottom trawl, dredge, fixed gear, set net, demersal seine, 
dinglebar gear, and other gear (including experimental gear) designed 
or modified to make contact with the bottom. Gear used to harvest 
bottom dwelling organisms (e.g. by hand, rakes, and knives) are also 
considered bottom contact gear for purposes of this subpart.
    (2) Demersal seine. A net designed to encircle fish on the seabed. 
The Demersal seine is characterized by having its net bounded by lead-
weighted ropes that are not encircled with bobbins or rollers. Demersal 
seine gear is fished without the use of steel cables or otter boards 
(trawl doors). Scottish and Danish Seines are demersal seines. Purse 
seines, as defined at Sec.  600.10, are not demersal seines. Demersal 
seine gear is included in the definition of bottom trawl gear in (9)(i) 
of this subsection.
    (3) Dredge gear. Dredge gear, with respect to the U.S. West Coast 
EEZ, refers to a gear consisting of a metal frame attached to a holding 
bag constructed of metal rings or mesh. As the metal frame is dragged 
upon or above the seabed, fish are pushed up and over the frame, then 
into the mouth of the holding bag.
    (4) Fixed gear (anchored nontrawl gear) includes the following gear 
types: Longline, trap or pot, set net, and stationary hook-and-line 
(including commercial vertical hook-and-line) gears.
    (5) Entangling nets include the following types of net gear:
    (i) Gillnet. (See Sec.  600.10).
    (ii) Set net. A stationary, buoyed, and anchored gillnet or trammel 
net.
    (iii) Trammel net. A gillnet made with two or more walls joined to 
a common float line.
    (6) Hook-and-line. One or more hooks attached to one or more lines. 
It may be stationary (commercial vertical hook-and-line) or mobile 
(troll).
    (i) Commercial vertical hook-and-line. Commercial fishing with 
hook-and-line gear that involves a single line anchored at the bottom 
and buoyed at the surface so as to fish vertically.
    (ii) Dinglebar gear. One or more lines retrieved and set with a 
troll gurdy or hand troll gurdy, with a terminally attached weight from 
which one or more leaders with one or more lures or baited hooks are 
pulled through the water while a vessel is making way.
    (iii) Bottom longline. A stationary, buoyed, and anchored 
groundline with hooks attached, so as to fish along the seabed. It does 
not include pelagic hook-and-line or troll gear.
    (iv) Troll gear. A lure or jig towed behind a vessel via a fishing 
line. Troll gear is used in commercial and recreational fisheries.
    (7) Mesh size. The opening between opposing knots. Minimum mesh 
size means the smallest distance allowed between the inside of one knot 
to the inside of the opposing knot, regardless of twine size.
    (8) Nontrawl gear. All legal commercial groundfish gear other than 
trawl gear.
    (9) Trawl gear. (See Sec.  600.10)
    (i) Bottom trawl. A trawl in which the otter boards or the footrope 
of the net are in contact with the seabed. It includes demersal seine 
gear, and pair trawls fished on the bottom. Any trawl not meeting the 
requirements for a midwater trawl in Sec.  660.381 is a bottom trawl.
    (A) Beam trawl gear. A type of trawl gear in which a beam is used 
to hold the trawl open during fishing. Otter boards or doors are not 
used.
    (B) Large footrope trawl gear. Large footrope gear is bottom trawl 
gear with a footrope diameter larger than 8 inches (20 cm,) and no 
larger than 19 inches (48 cm) including any rollers, bobbins, or other 
material encircling or tied along the length of the footrope.
    (C) Small footrope trawl gear. Small footrope trawl gear is bottom 
trawl gear with a footrope diameter of 8 inches (20 cm) or smaller, 
including any rollers, bobbins, or other material encircling or tied 
along the length of the footrope. Selective flatfish trawl gear that 
meets the gear component requirements in Sec.  660.381 is a type of 
small footrope trawl gear.
    (ii) Midwater (pelagic or off-bottom) trawl. A trawl in which the 
otter boards and footrope of the net remain above the seabed. It 
includes pair trawls if fished in midwater. A midwater trawl has no 
rollers or bobbins on any part of the net or its component wires, 
ropes, and chains.
    (iii) Trawl gear components.
    (A) Breastline. A rope or cable that connects the end of the 
headrope and the end of the trawl fishing line along the edge of the 
trawl web closest to the towing point.
    (B) Chafing gear. Webbing or other material attached to the codend 
of a trawl net to protect the codend from wear.
    (C) Codend. (See Sec.  600.10).
    (D) Double-bar mesh. Webbing comprised of two lengths of twine tied 
into a single knot.
    (E) Double-walled codend. A codend constructed of two walls of 
webbing.
    (F) Footrope. A chain, rope, or wire attached to the bottom front 
end of the trawl webbing forming the leading edge of the bottom panel 
of the trawl net, and attached to the fishing line.
    (G) Headrope. A chain, rope, or wire attached to the trawl webbing 
forming the leading edge of the top panel of the trawl net.
    (H) Rollers or bobbins are devices made of wood, steel, rubber, 
plastic, or other hard material that encircle the trawl footrope. These 
devices are commonly used to either bounce or pivot over seabed 
obstructions, in order to prevent the trawl footrope and net from 
snagging on the seabed.
    (I) Single-walled codend. A codend constructed of a single wall of 
webbing knitted with single or double-bar mesh.
    (J) Trawl fishing line. A length of chain or wire rope in the 
bottom front end of a trawl net to which the webbing or lead ropes are 
attached.
    (K) Trawl riblines. Heavy rope or line that runs down the sides, 
top, or underside of a trawl net from the mouth of the net to the 
terminal end of the codend to strengthen the net during fishing.
    (10) Spear. A sharp, pointed, or barbed instrument on a shaft.
    (11) Trap or pot. These terms are used as interchangeable synonyms. 
See Sec.  600.10 definition of ``trap.''
* * * * *
    4. In Sec.  660.306, paragraphs (a)(13) and (a)(14), and (h)(4) 
through (h)(10) are added to read as follows:


Sec.  660.306  Prohibitions.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *

[[Page 2005]]

    (13) Fish with dredge gear (defined in Sec.  660.302) anywhere 
within the EEZ.
    (14) Fish with beam trawl gear (defined in Sec.  660.302) anywhere 
within the EEZ.
* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (4) Fish with bottom trawl gear (defined in Sec.  660.302) anywhere 
within the EEZ seaward of a line approximating the 700 fathom (1280 m) 
depth contour, as defined in Sec.  660.395.
    (5) Fish with bottom trawl gear (defined in Sec.  660.302) with a 
footrope diameter greater than 19 inches (48 cm) (including rollers, 
bobbins or other material encircling or tied along the length of the 
footrope) anywhere within the EEZ.
    (6) Fish with bottom trawl gear (defined in Sec.  660.302) with a 
footrope diameter greater than 8 inches (20 cm) (including rollers, 
bobbins or other material encircling or tied along the length of the 
footrope) anywhere within the EEZ shoreward of a line approximating the 
100-fm (183-m) depth contour (defined in Sec.  660.393).
    (7) Fish with bottom trawl gear (as defined in Sec.  660.302), 
within the EEZ in the following areas (defined in Sec. Sec.  660.395 
through 660.397): Olympic 2, Biogenic 1, Biogenic 2, Grays Canyon, 
Biogenic 3, Nahelem Bank/Shale Pile, Astoria Canyon, Siletz Deepwater, 
Daisy Bank/Nelson Island, Newport Rockpile/ Stonewall Bank, Heceta 
Bank, Deepwater off Coos Bay, Bandon High Spot, Rogue Canyon.
    (8) Fish with bottom trawl gear (as defined in Sec.  660.302), 
other than Danish or demersal seine, within the EEZ in the following 
areas (defined in Sec. Sec.  660.395 through 660.397): Eel River 
Canyon, Blunts Reef, Mendocino Ridge, Delgada Canyon, Tolo Bank, Point 
Arena North, Outer Cordell Bank, Pt. Arena South Biogenic Area, 
Farallon Islands/Fanny Shoal, Half Moon Bay, Monterey Bay/Canyon, Point 
Sur Deep, Big Sur Coast/Port San Luis, East Santa Lucia Bank, Point 
Conception, Potato Bank (within Cowcod Conservation Area West), Cherry 
Bank (within Cowcod Conservation Area West) Hidden Reef/Kidney Bank 
(within Cowcod Conservation Area West), Catalina Island and Cowcod 
Conservation Area East.
    (9) Fish with bottom contact gear (as defined in Sec.  660.302) 
within the EEZ in the following areas (defined in Sec.  660.396): 
Anacapa Island SMR, Anacapa Island SMCA, Carrington Point, Footprint, 
Gull Island, Harris Point, Judith Rock, Painted Cave, Richardson Rock, 
Santa Barbara, Scorpion, Skunk Point, and South Point, Thompson 
Seamount, President Jackson Seamount, (50 fm (91 m) isobath).
    (10) Fish with bottom contact gear (as defined in Sec.  660.302), 
or any other gear that is deployed deeper than 500 fm (914 m), within 
the Davidson Seamount area (defined in Sec.  660.396).
* * * * *
    5. In Sec.  660.385, the introductory text is revised to read as 
follows:


Sec.  660.385  Washington coastal tribal fisheries management measures.

    In 1994, the United States formally recognized that the four 
Washington coastal treaty Indian tribes (Makah, Quileute, Hoh, and 
Quinault) have treaty rights to fish for groundfish in the Pacific 
Ocean, and concluded that, in general terms, the quantification of 
those rights is 50 percent of the harvestable surplus of groundfish 
that pass through the tribes usual and accustomed fishing areas 
(described at 50 CFR 660.324). Measures implemented to minimize adverse 
impacts to groundfish EFH, as described in Sec.  660.306 do not apply 
to tribal fisheries in their usual and accustomed fishing areas 
(described in 660.324). Treaty fisheries can not operate outside ususal 
and accustomed fishing areas. Tribal fishery allocations for sablefish 
and whiting, are provided in paragraphs (a) and (e) of this section, 
respectively, and the tribal harvest guideline for black rockfish is 
provided in paragraph (b)(1) of this section. Trip limits for certain 
species were recommended by the tribes and the Council for 2005-2006 
and are specified here with the tribal allocations.
* * * * *
    6. Section 660.395 is added to read as follows:


Sec.  660.395  Groundfish Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) conservation 
areas.

    Essential fish habitat (EFH) is defined as those waters and 
substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding or growth 
to maturity (16 U.S.C. 1802 (10). The areas in this subsection are 
designated to minimize to the extent practicable adverse effects to EFH 
caused by fishing(16 U.S.C. 1853 section 303(a)(7)). Straight lines 
connecting a series of latitude/longitude coordinates demarcate the 
boundaries for areas designated as Groundfish EFH Conservation Areas. 
Coordinates outlining the boundaries of Groundfish EFH Conservation 
Areas are provided in Sec. Sec.  660.395 through 660.397. Fishing 
activity that is prohibited or permitted within the EEZ in a particular 
area designated as a groundfish EFH Conservation Area is detailed at 
Sec.  660.306 and Sec.  660.385.
    (a) Seaward of the 700-fm (1280-m) contour. This area includes all 
waters within the West Coast EEZ west of a line approximating the 700-
fm (1280-m) depth contour and is defined by straight lines connecting 
all of the following points in the order stated:
    (1) 48[deg]06.97[min] N. lat., 126[deg]02.96[min] W. long.;
    (2) 48[deg]00.44[min] N. lat., 125[deg]54.96[min] W. long.;
    (3) 47[deg]55.96[min] N. lat., 125[deg]46.51[min] W. long.;
    (4) 47[deg]47.21[min] N. lat., 125[deg]43.73[min] W. long.;
    (5) 47[deg]42.89[min] N. lat., 125[deg]49.58[min] W. long.;
    (6) 47[deg]38.18[min] N. lat., 125[deg]37.26[min] W. long.;
    (7) 47[deg]32.36[min] N. lat., 125[deg]32.87[min] W. long.;
    (8) 47[deg]29.77[min] N. lat., 125[deg]26.27[min] W. long.;
    (9) 47[deg]28.54[min] N. lat., 125[deg]18.82[min] W. long.;
    (10) 47[deg]19.25[min] N. lat., 125[deg]17.18[min] W. long.;
    (11) 47[deg]08.82[min] N. lat., 125[deg]10.01[min] W. long.;
    (12) 47[deg]4.69[min] N. lat., 125[deg]03.77[min] W. long.;
    (13) 46[deg]48.38[min] N. lat., 125[deg]18.43[min] W. long.;
    (14) 46[deg]41.92[min] N. lat., 125[deg]17.29[min] W. long.;
    (15) 46[deg]27.49[min] N. lat., 124[deg]54.36[min] W. long.;
    (16) 46[deg]14.13[min] N. lat., 125[deg]02.72[min] W. long.;
    (17) 46[deg]09.53[min] N. lat., 125[deg]04.75[min] W. long.;
    (18) 45[deg]46.64[min] N. lat., 124[deg]54.44[min] W. long.;
    (19) 45[deg]40.86[min] N. lat., 124[deg]55.62[min] W. long.;
    (20) 45[deg]36.50[min] N. lat., 124[deg]51.91[min] W. long.;
    (21) 44[deg]55.69[min] N. lat., 125[deg]08.35[min] W. long.;
    (22) 44[deg]49.93[min] N. lat., 125[deg]01.51[min] W. long.;
    (23) 44[deg]46.93[min] N. lat., 125[deg]02.83[min] W. long.;
    (24) 44[deg]41.96[min] N. lat., 125[deg]10.64[min] W. long.;
    (25) 44[deg]28.31[min] N. lat., 125[deg]11.42[min] W. long.;
    (26) 43[deg]58.37[min] N. lat., 125[deg]02.93[min] W. long.;
    (27) 43[deg]52.74[min] N. lat., 125[deg]05.58[min] W. long.;
    (28) 43[deg]44.18[min] N. lat., 124[deg]57.17[min] W. long.;
    (29) 43[deg]7.58[min] N. lat., 125[deg]07.70[min] W. long.;
    (30) 43[deg]15.95[min] N. lat., 125[deg]07.84[min] W. long.;
    (31) 42[deg]47.50[min] N. lat., 124[deg]59.96[min] W. long.;

[[Page 2006]]

    (32) 42[deg]39.02[min] N. lat., 125[deg]01.07[min] W. long.;
    (33) 42[deg]34.80[min] N. lat., 125[deg]02.89[min] W. long.;
    (34) 42[deg]34.11[min] N. lat., 124[deg]55.62[min] W. long.;
    (35) 42[deg]23.81[min] N. lat., 124[deg]52.85[min] W. long.;
    (36) 42[deg]16.80[min] N. lat., 125[deg]00.20[min] W. long.;
    (37) 42[deg]06.60[min] N. lat., 124[deg]59.14[min] W. long.;
    (38) 41[deg]59.28[min] N. lat., 125[deg]06.23[min] W. long.;
    (39) 41[deg]31.10[min] N. lat., 125[deg]01.30[min] W. long.;
    (40) 41[deg]14.52[min] N. lat., 124[deg]52.67[min] W. long.;
    (41) 40[deg]40.65[min] N. lat., 124[deg]45.69[min] W. long.;
    (42) 40[deg]35.05[min] N. lat., 124[deg]45.65[min] W. long.;
    (43) 40[deg]23.81[min] N. lat., 124[deg]41.16[min] W. long.;
    (44) 40[deg]20.54[min] N. lat., 124[deg]36.36[min] W. long.;
    (45) 40[deg]20.84[min] N. lat., 124[deg]57.23[min] W. long.;
    (46) 40[deg]18.54[min] N. lat., 125[deg]09.47[min] W. long.;
    (47) 40[deg]14.54[min] N. lat., 125[deg]09.83[min] W. long.;
    (48) 40[deg]11.79[min] N. lat., 125[deg]07.39[min] W. long.;
    (49) 40[deg]06.72[min] N. lat., 125[deg]04.28[min] W. long.;
    (50) 39[deg]50.77[min] N. lat., 124[deg]37.54[min] W. long.;
    (51) 39[deg]56.67[min] N. lat., 124[deg]26.58[min] W. long.;
    (52) 39[deg]44.25[min] N. lat., 124[deg]12.60[min] W. long.;
    (53) 39[deg]35.82[min] N. lat., 124[deg]12.02[min] W. long.;
    (54) 39[deg]24.54[min] N. lat., 124[deg]16.01[min] W. long.;
    (55) 39[deg]01.97[min] N. lat., 124[deg]11.20[min] W. long.;
    (56) 38[deg]33.48[min] N. lat., 123[deg]48.21[min] W. long.;
    (57) 38[deg]14.49' N. lat., 123[deg]38.89' W. long.;
    (58) 37[deg]56.97' N. lat., 123[deg]31.65' W. long.;
    (59) 37[deg]49.09' N. lat., 123[deg]27.98' W. long.;
    (60) 37[deg]40.29' N. lat., 123[deg]12.83' W. long.;
    (61) 37[deg]22.54' N. lat., 123[deg]4.65' W. long.;
    (62) 37[deg]05.98' N. lat., 123[deg]05.31' W. long.;
    (63) 36[deg]59.02' N. lat., 122[deg]50.92' W. long.;
    (64) 36[deg]50.32' N. lat., 122[deg]17.44' W. long.;
    (65) 36[deg]44.54' N. lat., 122[deg]19.42' W. long.;
    (66) 36[deg]40.76' N. lat., 122[deg]17.28' W. long.;
    (67) 36[deg]39.88' N. lat., 122[deg]09.69' W. long.;
    (68) 36[deg]44.52' N. lat., 122[deg]07.13' W. long.;
    (69) 36[deg]42.26' N. lat., 122[deg]03.54' W. long.;
    (70) 36[deg]30.02' N. lat., 122[deg]09.85' W. long.;
    (71) 36[deg]22.33' N. lat., 122[deg]22.99' W. long.;
    (72) 36[deg]14.36' N. lat., 122[deg]21.19' W. long.;
    (73) 36[deg]09.50' N. lat., 122[deg]14.25' W. long.;
    (74) 35[deg]51.50' N. lat., 121[deg]55.92' W. long.;
    (75) 35[deg]49.53' N. lat., 122[deg]13.00' W. long.;
    (76) 34[deg]58.30' N. lat., 121[deg]36.76' W. long.;
    (77) 34[deg]53.13' N. lat., 121[deg]37.49' W. long.;
    (78) 34[deg]46.54' N. lat., 121[deg]46.25' W. long.;
    (79) 34[deg]37.81' N. lat., 121[deg]35.72' W. long.;
    (80) 34[deg]37.72' N. lat., 121[deg]27.35' W. long.;
    (81) 34[deg]26.77' N. lat., 121[deg]07.58' W. long.;
    (82) 34[deg]18.54' N. lat., 121[deg]05.01' W. long.;
    (83) 34[deg]02.68' N. lat., 120[deg]54.30' W. long.;
    (84) 33[deg]48.11' N. lat., 120[deg]25.46' W. long.;
    (85) 33[deg]42.54' N. lat., 120[deg]38.24' W. long.;
    (86) 33[deg]46.26' N. lat., 120[deg]43.64' W. long.;
    (87) 33[deg]40.71' N. lat., 120[deg]51.29' W. long.;
    (88) 33[deg]33.14' N. lat., 120[deg]40.25' W. long.;
    (89) 32[deg]51.57' N. lat., 120[deg]23.35' W. long.;
    (90) 32[deg]38.54' N. lat., 120[deg]09.54' W. long.;
    (91) 32[deg]35.76' N. lat., 119[deg]53.43' W. long.;
    (92) 32[deg]29.54' N. lat., 119[deg]46.00' W. long.;
    (93) 32[deg]25.99' N. lat., 119[deg]41.16' W. long.;
    (94) 32[deg]30.46' N. lat., 119[deg]33.15' W. long.;
    (95) 32[deg]23.47' N. lat., 119[deg]25.71' W. long.;
    (96) 32[deg]19.19' N. lat., 119[deg]13.96' W. long.;
    (97) 32[deg]13.18' N. lat., 119[deg]04.44' W. long.;
    (98) 32[deg]13.40' N. lat., 118[deg]51.87' W. long.;
    (99) 32[deg]19.62' N. lat., 118[deg]47.80' W. long.;
    (100) 32[deg]27.26' N. lat., 118[deg]50.29' W. long.;
    (101) 32[deg]8.42' N. lat., 118[deg]53.15' W. long.;
    (102) 32[deg]31.30' N. lat., 118[deg]55.09' W. long.;
    (103) 32[deg]33.04' N. lat., 118[deg]53.57' W. long.;
    (104) 32[deg]19.07' N. lat., 118[deg]27.54' W. long.;
    (105) 32[deg]18.57' N. lat., 118[deg]18.97' W. long.;
    (106) 32[deg]09.01' N. lat., 118[deg]13.96' W. long.;
    (107) 32[deg]06.57' N. lat., 118[deg]18.78' W. long.;
    (108) 32[deg]01.32' N. lat., 118[deg]18.21' W. long.; and
    (109) 31[deg]57.82' N. lat., 118[deg]10.34' W. long.;
    (b) Astoria Canyon. Astoria Canyon is defined by straight lines 
connecting all of the following points in the order stated:
    (1) 46[deg]06.48' N. lat., 125[deg]05.46' W. long.;
    (2) 46[deg]03.00' N. lat., 124[deg]57.36' W. long.;
    (3) 46[deg]02.28' N. lat., 124[deg]57.66' W. long.;
    (4) 46[deg]01.92' N. lat., 125[deg]02.46' W. long.;
    (5) 45[deg]48.72' N. lat., 124[deg]56.58' W. long.;
    (6) 45[deg]47.70' N. lat., 124[deg]52.20' W. long.;
    (7) 45[deg]40.86' N. lat., 124[deg]55.62' W. long.;
    (8) 45[deg]29.82' N. lat., 124[deg]54.30' W. long.;
    (9) 45[deg]25.98' N. lat., 124[deg]56.82' W. long.;
    (10) 45[deg]26.04' N. lat., 125[deg]10.50' W. long.;
    (11) 45[deg]33.12' N. lat., 125[deg]16.26' W. long.;
    (12) 45[deg]40.32' N. lat., 125[deg]17.16' W. long.;
    (13) 46[deg]03.00' N. lat., 125[deg]14.94' W. long.; and connecting 
back to 46[deg]06.48' N. lat., 125[deg]05.46' W. long.
    (c) Daisy Bank/Nelson Island. Daisy Bank/Nelson Island is defined 
by straight lines connecting all of the following points in the order 
stated:
    (1) 44[deg]9.73' N. lat., 124[deg]41.43' W. long.;
    (2) 44[deg]39.60' N. lat., 124[deg]41.29' W. long.;
    (3) 44[deg]37.17' N. lat., 124[deg]38.60' W. long.;
    (4) 44[deg]35.55' N. lat., 124[deg]39.27' W. long.;
    (5) 44[deg]37.57' N. lat., 124[deg]41.70' W. long.;
    (6) 44[deg]36.90' N. lat., 124[deg]42.91' W. long.;
    (7) 44[deg]38.25' N. lat., 124[deg]46.28' W. long.;
    (8) 44[deg]38.52' N. lat., 124[deg]49.11' W. long.;
    (9) 44[deg]40.27' N. lat., 124[deg]49.11' W. long.;

[[Page 2007]]

    (10) 44[deg]41.35' N. lat., 124[deg]48.03' W. long.; and connecting 
back to 44[deg]39.73' N. lat., 124[deg]41.43' W. long.
    (d) Newport Rockpile/Stonewall Bank. Newport Rockpile/Stonewall 
Bank is defined by straight lines connecting all of the following 
points in the order stated:
    (1) 44[deg]27.61' N. lat., 124[deg]26.93' W. long.;
    (2) 44[deg]34.64' N. lat., 124[deg]26.82' W. long.;
    (3) 44[deg]38.15' N. lat., 124[deg]25.15' W. long.;
    (4) 44[deg]37.78' N. lat., 124[deg]23.05' W. long.;
    (5) 44[deg]28.82' N. lat., 124[deg]18.80' W. long.;
    (6) 44[deg]25.16' N. lat., 124[deg]20.69' W. long.; and connecting 
back to 44[deg]27.61' N. lat., 124[deg]26.93' W. long.
    (e) Cherry Bank. Cherry Bank is within the Cowcod Conservation Area 
West, an area south of Point Conception, and is defined by straight 
lines connecting all of the following points in the order stated:
    (1) 32[deg]59.00' N. lat., 119[deg]32.05' W. long.;
    (2) 32[deg]59.00' N. lat., 119[deg]17.05' W. long.;
    (3) 32[deg]46.00' N. lat., 119[deg]17.05' W. long.;
    (4) 32[deg]46.00' N. lat., 119[deg]32.05' W. long.; and connecting 
back to 32[deg]59.00' N. lat., 119[deg]32.05' W. long.
    (f) Potato Bank. Potato Bank is within the Cowcod Conservation Area 
West, an area south of Point Conception, and is defined by straight 
lines connecting all of the following points in the order stated:
    (1) 33[deg]30.00' N. lat., 120[deg]00.06' W. long.;
    (2) 33[deg]30.00' N. lat., 119[deg]50.06' W. long.;
    (3) 33[deg]20.00' N. lat., 119[deg]50.06' W. long.;
    (4) 33[deg]20.00' N. lat., 120[deg]00.06' W. long.; and connecting 
back to 33[deg]30.00' N. lat., 120[deg]00.06' W. long.
    (g) Olympic 2. Olympic 2 is defined by straight lines connecting 
all of the following points in the order stated:
    (1) 48[deg]21.46' N. lat., 124[deg]51.61' W. long.;
    (2) 48[deg]17.00' N. lat., 124[deg]57.18' W. long.;
    (3) 48[deg]06.13' N. lat., 125[deg]00.68' W. long.;
    (4) 48[deg]06.66' N. lat., 125[deg]06.55' W. long.;
    (5) 48[deg]08.44' N. lat., 125[deg]14.61' W. long.;
    (6) 48[deg]22.57' N. lat., 125[deg]09.82' W. long.;
    (7) 48[deg]21.42' N. lat., 125[deg]03.55' W.