Source: https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2006/01/12/06-209/magnuson-stevens-act-provisions-fisheries-off-west-coast-states-and-in-the-western-pacific-pacific
Timestamp: 2016-07-25 02:23:57
Document Index: 490029149

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 660', '§ 660', '§ 660', '§ 660', '§ 600', '§ 600', '§ 600', '§ 600', '§ 660', '§ 660', '§ 600', '§ 600', '§ 660', '§ 660', '§ 660', '§ 660', '§ 660', '§ 660', '§ 660', '§ 660', '§ 660', '§ 660', '§ 660', '§ 660', '§ 660', '§ 660', '§ 660', '§ 660', '§ 660', '§ 660', '§ 660', '§ 660', '§ 660', '§ 660', '§ 660', '§ 660', '§ 660', '§ 660', '§ 660']

Federal Register | Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; Fisheries Off West Coast States and in the Western Pacific; Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery
Dates: Comments on this proposed rule must be received by 5 p.m. local time February 27, 2006.
-2012 (15 pages)
Document Number: 06-209
Shorter URL: https://federalregister.gov/a/06-209 Related Topics
Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; Fisheries off West Coast States and in the Western Pacific; Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; Biennial Specifications and Management Measures 3 actions from September 21st, 2004 to December 2004
69 FR 56549
The proposed rule also is accessible via the Internet at the Office of the Federal Register's website at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html. Background information and documents are available at the NMFS Northwest Region website at http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/ and at the Pacific Council's website at http://www.pcouncil.org.
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 from the outer boundary of the territorial sea to a distance of 200 nautical miles from shore.
EFH Identification and Description in Amendment 19 Back to Top
HAPC in Amendment 19 Back to Top
Although the Magnuson-Stevens Act does not require Councils to designate HAPCs, NMFS encourages them to do 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
Minimization of Adverse Impacts From Fishing Back to Top
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.
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 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.
Proposed Management Measures in Amendment 19 Back to Top
Summary of Rationale for the Proposed Managed Areas Back to Top
Specific Request for Additional Comments and Information Back to Top
A coastwide prohibition on bottom trawling in all areas within the EEZ that 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 Back to Top
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: http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Groundfish-Halibut/Groundfish-Fishery-Management/NEPA-Documents/Index.cfm.
NMFS prepared an IRFA that describes the impact that this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small 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
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
2. In § 660.301, paragraph (a) is revised as follows:
§ 660.301 Purpose and scope.
3. In § 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:
§ 660.302 Definitions.
Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). (See § 600.10).
(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 § 600.10, are not demersal seines. Demersal seine gear is included in the definition of bottom trawl gear in (9)(i) of this subsection.
(i) Gillnet. (See § 600.10).
(9) Trawl gear. (See § 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 § 660.381 is a bottom trawl.
(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 § 660.381 is a type of small footrope trawl gear.
(C) Codend. (See § 600.10).
(11) Trap or pot. These terms are used as interchangeable synonyms. See § 600.10 definition of “trap.”
4. In § 660.306, paragraphs (a)(13) and (a)(14), and (h)(4) through (h)(10) are added to read as follows:
§ 660.306 Prohibitions.
(a) * * * (13) Fish with dredge gear (defined in § 660.302) anywhere within the EEZ.
(14) Fish with beam trawl gear (defined in § 660.302) anywhere within the EEZ.
(4) Fish with bottom trawl gear (defined in § 660.302) anywhere within the EEZ seaward of a line approximating the 700 fathom (1280 m) depth contour, as defined in § 660.395.
(5) Fish with bottom trawl gear (defined in § 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 § 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 § 660.393).
(7) Fish with bottom trawl gear (as defined in § 660.302), within the EEZ in the following areas (defined in §§ 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 § 660.302), other than Danish or demersal seine, within the EEZ in the following areas (defined in §§ 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 § 660.302) within the EEZ in the following areas (defined in § 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 § 660.302), or any other gear that is deployed deeper than 500 fm (914 m), within the Davidson Seamount area (defined in § 660.396).
5. In § 660.385, the introductory text is revised to read as follows:
§ 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 § 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.
§ 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 §§ 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 § 660.306 and § 660.385.
(31) 42°47.50′ N. lat., 124°59.96′ W. long.; (32) 42°39.02′ N. lat., 125°01.07′ W. long.;
(9) 44°40.27′ N. lat., 124°49.11′ W. long.; (10) 44°41.35′ N. lat., 124°48.03′ W. long.; and connecting back to 44°39.73′ N. lat., 124°41.43′ W. long.
(p) Pt. Arena South Biogenic Area. Pt. Arena South Biogenic Area is defined by straight lines connecting all of the following points in the order stated: (1) 38°35.49′ N. lat., 123°34.79′ W. long.;
(9) 43°58.61′ N. lat., 124°49.87′ W. long.; and connecting back to 43°57.68′ N. lat., 124°55.48′ W. long. (x) Rogue Canyon. Rogue Canyon is defined by straight lines connecting all of the following points in the order stated:
Coordinates outlining the boundaries of Groundfish EFH Conservation Areas are provided in §§ 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 § 660.306 and § 660.385.
(4) 38°00.24′ N. lat., 123°27.87′ W. long.; (5) 38°00.98′ N. lat., 123°27.65′ W. long.;
(21) 36°47.23′ N. lat., 121°52.25′ W. long.; (22) 36°45.60′ N. lat., 121°54.17′ W. long.;
(1) 34°10.40′ N. lat., 120°28.20′ W. long.; (2) 34°10.40′ N. lat., 120°36.29′ W. long.;