Proposal to the Pacific Fishery Management Council to Modify Groundfish Essential Fish Habitat Designation, Conservation, and Enforcement

Proposal to the Pacific Fishery Management Council To Modify Groundfish Essential Fish Habitat Designation, Conservation, and Enforcement

Comprehensive Conservation Proposal

Top: Rosy rockfish nestled in black coral at Cochrane Bank, GOFNMS. Bottom: Diverse seafloor habitat at Cape Arago Reef off Oregon, Oceana.

July 31, 2013

Comprehensive Conservation Proposal Oceana, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Ocean Conservancy July 31, 2013

Proponents:

Geoff Shester Seth Atkinson California Program Director Oceans Program Attorney Oceana Natural Resources Defense Council 99 Pacific Street, Suite 155-C 111 Sutter Street, 20th Floor Monterey, CA 93940 San Francisco, CA 94104 831-643-9266 415-875-6133 [email protected] [email protected]

Ben Enticknap Greg Helms Pacific Campaign Manager and Senior Scientist Manager, Pacific Program Oceana Ocean Conservancy 222 NW Davis Street, Suite 200 1528 Castillo St. Portland, OR 97209 Santa Barbara CA 93101 503-235-0278 805-963-4332 [email protected] [email protected]

Comprehensive Conservation Proposal Oceana, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Ocean Conservancy July 31, 2013

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Proposal summary 4 II. Why this proposal is warranted 8 A. Description of proposal objectives 8 B. Consistency of proposal with PFMC responsibility to identify and protect EFH, and to 9 minimize to the extent practicable, the adverse effects of fishing i. Deep sea corals and sponges 12 ii. Coral and sponge longevity and recovery rates 15 iii. Hard and mixed substrates 17 iv. Submarine canyons 17 v. Effects of trawling on seafloor habitats 17 C. How new or newly available information indicates that the EFH description, its components, or associated management measures should be modified 22 III. Proposal development and outreach to date 23 IV. Coastal Treaty Tribes’ Usual and Accustomed Areas 24 V. Proposed actions 24 A. Spatial changes to current EFH Conservation Areas and proposed new EFH Conservation Areas 24 B. Gear regulation changes: midwater trawl gear 31 C. Changes to the description and identification of Groundfish EFH 31 i. Waters deeper than 3,500 m 31 ii. Major prey species for groundfish 34 D. Enforcement changes 39 VI. Analysis and supporting information for proposed spatial changes 40 A. Description of spatial analyses 41 B. Description of individual proposed areas (Areas 1-75 and concept area 76) 43

VII. References 78

VIII. Appendix A. figures A.1 to A.42 - proposal map series IX. Appendix B. figures B.1 to B.2 - maps of proposed areas in relation to Oregon shrimp trawl effort X. Appendix C. Tables - spatial analyses A. Baseline analysis of existing permanent trawl closures B. Analysis of individual proposed areas C. Analysis of baseline protection, plus proposed areas XI. Appendix D. Coordinates for proposed spatial changes

Comprehensive Conservation Proposal Oceana, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Ocean Conservancy July 31, 2013

I. Proposal Summary

Protecting ocean habitats is a critical and integral part of responsible fishery management, for ensuring long-term sustainable and productive fisheries, vibrant coastal communities and healthy marine ecosystems. As a result, the mandate to identify and protect essential fish habitat (EFH) was added by Congress to federal fisheries law through the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996. The Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC or Council) has been at the forefront of fish habitat protections nationally and internationally since the implementation of Amendment 19 to the Groundfish Fishery Management Plan in 2006, which implemented coastwide seafloor habitat protections focused primarily on minimizing and preventing the adverse effects of bottom trawling to the extent practicable.

The Council’s approach was to establish an array of EFH Conservation Areas prohibiting bottom trawling in areas known to have sensitive habitat (criteria included hard substrate, biogenic habitats such as corals and sponges, submarine canyons, seamounts, ridges and other areas of interest), and to freeze the bottom trawl footprint by closing waters deeper than 700 fathoms as a precautionary measure. Particularly for managed groundfish which are known to associate with and utilize physical and biogenic seafloor structures as habitat, these habitat protections should ideally maintain and enhance the overall productivity of the groundfish fishery, resulting in a dual long-term conservation and fishery benefits. The initial implementation of this approach was groundbreaking and precedent-setting on a global stage, however, due to the general paucity of information on seafloor habitats and their relationship to managed groundfish, it was broadly recognized that the ultimate success of Essential Fish Habitat conservation and management would depend on the incorporation of new scientific information, and refinements of management measures over time through an adaptive management framework.

The EFH 5-year review is the process established by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to conduct this ongoing evaluation and adaptive management; representing an important precedent-setting opportunity to demonstrate how newly available science and information can be used to further accomplish the mandate to minimize the adverse impacts of fishing to the extent practicable. To this end, our three conservation organizations have expended considerable time and resources throughout the review process to bring forward data, information, and analyses, including conducting at-sea expeditions to characterize and document new seafloor habitats with remotely operated vehicles. Through our analyses of the data compiled in the EFH Review Process thus far (the PFMC Phase I Report and associated data (PFMC 2012), EFH data portal, and the NMFS EFH Synthesis (NMFS 2013), and meetings with individuals and organizations of the fishing industry throughout the west coast, we have compiled a comprehensive proposal in response to the Council’s Request For Proposals to Modify Pacific Coast Groundfish EFH. The intent of our proposal is to illustrate that further changes to EFH are indeed warranted (i.e., demonstrate why the Council should initiate Phase 3 of the process) and provide a suite of refinements and improvements that can serve as the starting point for specific regulatory changes in the Phase 3 process.

Comprehensive Conservation Proposal Oceana, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Ocean Conservancy July 31, 2013

This proposal includes:

1. Sixty-six new and modified EFH Conservation Areas prohibiting bottom trawling off the coasts of Washington, Oregon and California, 2. Nine additional areas proposed to be reopened to bottom trawling, 3. Proposed improvements to the enforcement of EFH Conservation Areas and other bottom trawl closures, 4. New management measures to restrict bottom contact by midwater trawl gear when operating within EFH Conservation Areas, 5. Identification of major prey species for groundfish in the description of EFH and its components, and 6. Addition of all waters deeper than 3,500 meters (m) in the U.S. West Coast EEZ as groundfish EFH.

While this proposal has multiple components that fall into the categories of EFH Designation, EFH Conservation and Management, and Enforcement, we view these categories as distinct and they can be evaluated and considered independently of each other. In addition, this proposal considers reopening areas within Monterey Bay State waters to bottom trawling while recognizing that only the California legislature could formally take this action. In this proposal all closed areas would apply to non-Tribal groundfish and state managed bottom trawling in federal waters (including pink shrimp, sea cucumber, and California halibut trawling).

Across the entire West Coast EEZ, the net change of all the proposed EFH Conservation Areas and re-openings would result in:

 An additional 1,311 miles2 of hard substrate protected from bottom trawling (30% increase),  An additional 339 miles2 of mixed (hard and soft) substrate protected from bottom trawling (107% increase),  Inclusion of 14,793 coral observations in EFH conservation areas (17.6% increase)  Inclusion of 10,215 sponge observations in EFH conservation areas (940% increase)  An additional 2,786 miles2 of predicted highly suitable coral habitat protected from bottom trawling (45% increase)  And a total increase of 137,577 miles2 protected from bottom trawling overall (91% increase)

This proposal would maintain over 23,900 miles2 of the continental shelf and upper slope habitat as open to bottom trawling. We propose that 151 miles2 of area currently closed to bottom trawling off California be opened, that and we present an additional 33 miles2 reopening in the Monterey Bay area as a draft concept for further discussion.

Thirty-three of the proposed EFH Conservation areas (including modified areas) overlap in part with the year round groundfish trawl Rockfish Conservation Area. In our analysis of the trawl effort data provided in the EFH Review, the proposed 66 closed areas combined included only

Comprehensive Conservation Proposal Oceana, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Ocean Conservancy July 31, 2013

8.01% of recent (2006-2010) bottom trawl effort. The proposed open areas would restore significant areas that caused bottom trawl effort displacement in 2006.

Overall, the proposed spatial components of this proposal would substantially increase habitat protections on a coastwide and regional basis, as measured by total area protected and sensitive habitat types represented. Importantly, using spatial data made available in Phase I of the EFH 5-year review and in conversations with fishermen, we have given much consideration to maintaining areas important to the bottom trawl fishery. Ultimately, this proposal is a practicable approach to ensure healthy ocean habitats important to groundfish species, and to maintain a productive and vibrant West Coast groundfish fishery for generations to come.

While we have invested significant time and effort in the design of this proposal including many conversations with State fishery managers, NMFS and National Marine Sanctuary Staff, Tribal resource managers, fishermen, conservation organizations and others, we view these proposals as a starting point for continued discussions. Thus far our conversations with the fishing industry have resulted in the discovery of some win-win situations that improve fishing opportunities while increasing overall habitat protections, and we are optimistic that beneficial scenarios contained in this proposal can achieve that end.

Comprehensive Conservation Proposal Oceana, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Ocean Conservancy July 31, 2013

Figure 1. Proposed coastwide EFH Conservation Area modifications and new conservation areas

Comprehensive Conservation Proposal Oceana, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Ocean Conservancy July 31, 2013

II. An explanation of why the proposal is warranted

According to scientists, current knowledge indicates that “deep-sea coral and sponge communities appear to be as important to the biodiversity of the oceans and the sustainability of fisheries as their analogues in shallow tropical seas” (MCBI and Oceana 2004). Dive surveys in the Pacific have recently discovered complex deep-sea corals and glass sponge reefs vulnerable to disturbance outside of areas currently closed to protect habitat. Further, seafloor habitat mapping efforts have completely changed the current knowledge of the extent and location of offshore reefs known to be productive, sensitive and unique fish habitat features off the U.S. West Coast.

The case for bottom trawl prohibitions to protect corals and sponges was strong in 2005 and is even stronger now. Additional studies conducted since 2005 confirm the National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council 2002 conclusion that bottom trawling changes the chemistry, geological structure, biological communities, productivity, and complexity of seafloor habitats, and that these impacts are most severe and long-term in hard bottom areas containing fragile, long-lived coral and sponge habitats (NRC 2002). In 2010, NOAA adopted a Strategic Plan for Deep Sea Corals and Sponges, with the management objectives of protecting known areas of corals and sponges currently subject to trawling and protecting areas that may contain corals and sponges that have not been recently trawled (NOAA 2010). The Strategic Plan identified EFH regulations as a primary avenue toward implementing these management objectives.

NOAA has identified that fishing operations along the narrow continental shelf off the Pacific coast, “particularly bottom trawling, pose the most immediate and widespread threats to deep coral communities” (Whitmire and Clarke 2007). The adverse impacts of bottom trawling on seafloor habitat include changes in physical habitat and in biologic structure of ecosystems, and reductions in benthic habitat complexity and biodiversity (NRC 2002). These impacts are far more pronounced in areas of biogenic habitat such as coral and sponge habitat, where longevity and recovery times can be on the order of centuries or more. The likely consequence of bottom trawling in these areas is the loss of these unique and fragile living marine resources, as well as the benefits they provide to the rest of the ecosystem, including the long-term sustainability of commercial fisheries targeting fishes that use coral and sponge habitat.

A. Proposal Objectives

The overall goal of our proposal is to protect Essential Fish Habitat for the full suite of Pacific Coast Groundfish while maintaining vibrant fisheries and coastal communities.

This proposal achieves this goal through the following objectives:

1) Establish new and/or expanded EFH Conservation Areas prohibiting bottom trawling for areas in the West Coast EEZ meeting one or more of the following criteria:

Comprehensive Conservation Proposal Oceana, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Ocean Conservancy July 31, 2013

a) Areas known to contain habitat features particularly sensitive to bottom trawl impacts, including hard substrate, biogenic habitats, submarine canyons, ridges, banks, escarpments, and/or other exceptional features; b) Areas with high regional coral and/or sponge bycatch; c) Areas within and/or adjacent to the current year-round closed portion of the groundfish trawl Rockfish Conservation Area (Trawl RCA) containing ecologically important and/or sensitive habitats important to overfished species and target species, so that these areas remain protected, as bycatch-related spatial protections are lifted; d) Areas that improve the overall representation of habitat types contained in EFH Conservation Areas in regional and coastwide contexts; e) Areas that are adjacent to newly designated marine protected areas; f) Areas that increase the overall level of protection for sensitive habitat types within each of the five west coast National Marine Sanctuaries; g) Areas that are currently subject to very low or no trawl effort that may contain sensitive habitats. 2) Remove specific sections of existing EFH Conservation Areas where appropriate to improve trawl fishing opportunity in exchange for substantial overall net increases in regional and coastwide habitat protections. 3) Achieve desired conservation targets with minimal cost to fishing industry (cost- effectiveness). 4) Improve the spatial resolution of enforcement of bottom trawl area closures to allow for more refined EFH management. 5) Ensure all EFH Conservation Areas are protected from midwater trawl gear through improved enforcement of bottom contact. 6) Explore and evaluate the effectiveness of new experimental, voluntary measures by the trawl fleet to achieve further habitat protections. 7) Set a strong precedent for adaptive management of EFH in the periodic 5-year review process through constructive refinements using best available science.

When the initial round of EFH was put in place in 2006, there was relatively little consideration of whether valuable habitat existed in the trawl RCA because the trawl RCA already had de facto protection. Given that the trawl RCA may be lifted in the near future, however, now is the time to scrutinize the RCA area and identify sub-areas that should remain protected for habitat-related value. In doing so, we intend to apply the same criteria to the RCA as to anywhere else in the EEZ. The only difference is that establishing EFH protection in RCA areas does not displace current effort.

B. Consistency with PFMC responsibility to identify and protect EFH, and to minimize to the extent practicable, the adverse effects of fishing

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), 16 U.S.C. § 1801 et seq., requires NMFS and Councils to “describe and identify essential fish habitat” and “minimize to the extent practicable adverse effects on such habitat caused by fishing,” while also identifying “other actions to encourage the conservation and enhancement of such habitat.” 16 U.S.C. § 1853(a)(7). EFH is defined as “those waters and substrate necessary to fish for

Comprehensive Conservation Proposal Oceana, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Ocean Conservancy July 31, 2013 spawning, breeding, feeding or growth to maturity.” Id. § 1802(a)(10). The EFH implementing regulations define “waters” as including, “aquatic areas and their associated physical, chemical, and biological properties that are used by fish and may include aquatic areas historically used by fish,” and define “substrate” as including “sediment, hard bottom, structures underlying the waters, and associated biological communities.” 50 C.F.R § 600.10. The regulations further explain that “necessary,” in the context of the statutory EFH definition, means “the habitat required to support a sustainable fishery and the managed species contribution to a healthy ecosystem,” and that “‘spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity’ covers a species’ full life cycle.” Id.

To protect EFH, Councils are required to “prevent, mitigate, or minimize any adverse effects from fishing, to the extent practicable, if there is evidence that a fishing activity adversely affects EFH in a manner that is more than minimal and not temporary in nature.” Id. § 600.815(a)(2)(ii). Adverse effects mean “any impact that reduces quality and/or quality of EFH,” and 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.” Id. § 600.810(a).

To implement these requirements, the PFMC developed Amendment 19 to the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (Groundfish FMP), which protected many of the coral and sponge hotspots known at that time. In implementing Amendment 19, NMFS concluded that “adverse impacts to habitat were possible [from fishing] that could impair the ability of fish to carry out basic biological functions and potentially have long-lasting or permanent implications at the scale of the ecosystem.” 71 Fed. Reg. 27,408, 27,410 (May 11, 2006). Therefore, “to protect EFH from the adverse effects of fishing, the Council . . . identified areas that are closed to bottom trawling.” These precautionary management measures were carried out in the agency’s final rule implementing Amendment 19. See Groundfish FMP § 6.2.4; 50 C.F.R. § 660.396.

In its record of decision, NMFS stated:

These measures are practicable because they have minimal economic 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% of the fishery. That amount of effort is likely to be able to relocate so the net effect would result in little change in overall catch.

The available information does give NMFS reason to conclude that there may be adverse impacts on EFH, and the management measures are necessary and appropriate to minimize these potential adverse impacts. The measures are practicable because they do not cause a significant burden on the fishing industry since they close areas not currently fished and other measures would limit gear usage in certain areas, displacing less than 10% of the fleet.

Comprehensive Conservation Proposal Oceana, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Ocean Conservancy July 31, 2013

National Marine Fisheries Service, Record of Decision: Final EIS for EFH Designation and Minimization of Adverse Impacts at 23 (2006).

The obligation to protect EFH, however, did not end with Amendment 19. The PFMC has correctly recognized that it has an ongoing responsibility to protect EFH, by among other things, reviewing the EFH regulations and proposing updates to them in response to new information and data. See Pacific Fishery Management Council, Pacific Coast Groundfish 5-Year Review of Essential Fish Habitat: Phase 1 Report, at ES-1 (2012) (EFH Phase 1 Report); 50 C.F.R. § 600.815(a)(10) (instructing regional councils to review the adequacy of their EFH protections at least every five years). As the Groundfish FMP states, “[p]rotecting, conserving, and enhancing EFH are long-term goals of the Council, and these EFH provisions . . . are an important element in the Council’s commitment to a better understanding, and conservation and management, of Pacific Coast groundfish populations and their habitat needs.” Groundfish FMP § 7.0.

Since the Council took its initial EFH action in 2006, the federal government has provided further clarification of the need to protect sensitive deep water corals. NOAA technical guidance states, “Over the past decade, science has demonstrated that deep corals are often extremely long-lived, slow-growing animals, characteristics that make them particularly vulnerable to physical disturbance, especially from activities such as bottom trawling.” Hourigan, T.F., et al., State of Deep Coral Ecosystems of the United States: Introduction and National Overview, in NOAA Technical Memorandum CRCP-3: The State of Deep-sea Coral Ecosystems of the United States, at 2, (SE Lumsden, et al. eds 2007).

The agency notes further that “deep coral habitats appear to be much more extensive and important than previously known, particularly with respect to supporting biologically diverse faunal assemblages.” Id. at 1. Deep-sea sponges often share these same characteristics. Finally, NOAA has identified that fishing operations along the narrow continental shelf off the Pacific coast, “particularly bottom trawling, pose the most immediate and widespread threats to deep coral communities.” Id. at 125.

In its 2010 Strategic Plan for Deep-Sea Coral and Sponge Ecosystems, NOAA describes its statutory duty to protect and manage cold water corals and sponge ecosystems as well as the policy reasons for doing so. See National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA Technical Memorandum CRCP 11: NOAA Strategic Plan for Deep-Sea Coral and Sponge Ecosystems (2010). As NOAA explains, the legal mandate to protect these ecosystems is found in the MSA requirements to minimize and avoid bycatch and to identify, describe, and minimize the adverse effects of fishing on EFH in addition to the specific statutory provisions authorizing Councils to include management measures to conserve and protect deep sea coral and sponge ecosystems and to conserve target and non-target species and habitats. See id. at 9-11. To fulfill this legal mandate, NOAA has set coral and sponge conservation objectives, including:

1. Protect areas containing known deep-sea coral and sponge communities from impacts of bottom-tending gear.

Comprehensive Conservation Proposal Oceana, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Ocean Conservancy July 31, 2013

2. Protect areas that may support deep-sea coral and sponge communities where mobile bottom tending fishing gear has not been used recently, as a precautionary measure. 3. Develop regional approaches to further reduce interactions between fishing gear and deep-sea corals and sponges. 4. Enhance conservation of deep-sea coral and sponge ecosystems in the National Marine Sanctuaries and Marine National Monuments.

Id. at 27.

Thus, modifying current EFH Conservation Areas to include additional deep-sea coral and sponge habitat is clearly consistent with the Council’s responsibilities and authorities. Moreover, once it identifies EFH, the Council must take action to minimize to the extent practicable adverse effects of fishing. Given the acknowledged vulnerability of coral and sponge communities to activities like bottom trawling, additional measures are needed to protect the newly identified EFH areas. Protecting these habitats from fishing is practicable, as it would have limited economic impact on the fishery. Adding the proposed areas of sensitive habitat as designated EFH and taking steps to protect those areas is consistent with the Council’s legal obligations and previous actions.

i. Deep-sea corals and sponges: ecological importance and species associations

Corals, sponges, and other habitat-forming invertebrates provide three-dimensional structure on the seafloor that increases the complexity of benthic substrates. While corals and sponges are the most conspicuous and easily observable biogenic structures, they generally occur in diverse biological communities with other invertebrates such as crinoids, basket stars, ascidians, annelids, and bryozoans. Henry (2001) found thirteen hydroid species collected from only four coral specimens, suggesting that northern corals support highly diverse epifaunal communities. Beaulieu (2001) observed 139 taxa associated with deep-sea sponge communities in the northeast Pacific. Buhl-Mortensen and Mortensen (2004) found 17 species of Pandalus shrimp, isopods, amphipods, copepods, and decapods associated with Paragorgia arborea and Primnoa resedaeformis in Nova Scotia, including an obligate associated copepod. Removal of habitat structure in relatively low-structure soft-sediment systems significantly decreases biodiversity, and consequently that of the wider marine ecosystem (Thrush et al. 2001).

Deep-sea corals, sponges and other habitat-forming invertebrates provide three dimensional structures that form habitat for commercial groundfish, shellfish, and other marine life (Husebo et al. 2002; Krieger and Wing 2002; Malecha et al. 2002; Heifetz 2002). Cold-water coral and sponge habitat is an important component of essential fish habitat and is vulnerable to the impacts of bottom trawling. The adverse impacts of bottom trawling on deep-sea coral ecosystems and hard bottom habitats are well documented (MacDonald et al., 1996; Krieger, 2001; Thrush and Dayton, 2002; Anderson and Clark, 2003). In February 2004, over 1,100 scientists signed a consensus statement declaring that “In short, based on current knowledge, deep-sea coral and sponge communities appear to be as important to the biodiversity of the

Comprehensive Conservation Proposal Oceana, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Ocean Conservancy July 31, 2013 oceans and the sustainability of fisheries as their analogues in shallow tropical seas” (MCBI and Oceana 2004).

This statement is corroborated by numerous scientific studies documenting the importance of cold-water corals as habitat for feeding, breeding, and growth to maturity of fish and invertebrates. Here are 13 examples:

1. Hyland et al. 2004 in the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary documented bottom trawl marks in the vicinity and a large proportion of dead or broken corals. 2. Krieger and Wing (2002) identified 10 megafaunal groups associated with Primnoa sp. deep-sea corals that use the corals for feeding, breeding, and protection from predators. Six rockfish species were either beneath, among, or above the coral colonies. Shrimp were among the coral polyps and a pair of mating king crabs was hiding beneath the coral. The authors conclude that removal of these slow-growing corals could cause long- term changes in associated megafauna. 3. Dr. Milton Love (pers. comm.) identified large schools of juvenile rockfish (including widow and squarespot rockfish) closely associated among the branches of the Christmas tree coral, likely using the coral for protection. This deep-sea coral species was named based on the numerous associated species that clung to the branches like Christmas ornaments (Opresko 2005). 4. Mortensen et al. (1995) identified megafauna associated with deep-sea coral bioherms in Norway, including redfish, saithe, squat lobsters, sponges, and gorgonians (Paragorgia arborea, Paramuricea placomus, Primnoa resedaeformis). 5. Buhl-Mortensen and Mortensen (2004) documented 17 crustacean species associated with cold-water gorgonian corals off Canada, most of which were using the habitat as protection from predators and some were obligate to the corals. This suggests corals provide habitat for commercial fish prey. 6. Husebo et al. (2002) found that the largest catches of redfish (Sebastes marinus) were made with long-line fleets set in deep-sea coral reef habitats. Fish caught in coral habitats tended to be larger in size than in non-coral habitats. Reasons for the associations were feeding and physical structure. 7. Christiansen and Lutter (2003) cite evidence that commercially caught demersal and pelagic fish species, mainly redfish, saithe, ling and tusk, have a higher abundance near deep-sea coral reefs and patches. 8. Costello et al. (2003) found that fish species and abundance was greater on the deep-sea coral habitat than surrounding seabed; 69% of species and 79% of abundance was associated with the reefs. 9. Koenig et al. (2003) state that important predatory fish species have been seen aggregating around the larger coral structures of Oculina sp. deep-sea corals off Florida, and small fish have taken up residence inside the modules. 13

Comprehensive Conservation Proposal Oceana, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Ocean Conservancy July 31, 2013

10. Scott and Risk (2003) found abundant fish associated with Primnoa which are not common in areas where coral is absent. The authors state that deep-sea corals off Canada are being rapidly depleted by bottom trawling, which in turn appears to have an impact on fish stocks. 11. Sulak et al. (2003) listed economically important fish species observed in deep-sea coral habitat, several of which were restricted to this habitat. The authors also found several poorly known fish species associated with deep-sea corals. 12. Brodeur (2001) documented Pacific Ocean perch using sea whip forest habitat in the Pribilof Canyon in the Bering Sea on a diel cycle as resting areas. 13. Baillon et al. (2012) consistently found fish larvae from endangered redfish (Sebastes spp.), lanternfish, and eelpout closely associated with Pennantulacea sea whips and sea pens Glass sponges and demosponges represent a major component of biogenic fish habitat and are a diverse group of large, slow-growing seafloor animals that provide habitat for fish and invertebrates on the U.S. West Coast. Like corals, glass sponges not only create new and complex habitat in the areas with live individuals, but also in regions of the reef with dead sponges and adjacent to the reefs as well (Cook 2005). In British Columbia sponge reefs for example, sponge skeletons provide a variety of physical niches that support a varied diversity of organisms such as crabs, shrimp, prawns, krill, squat lobsters and juvenile rockfish (Conway et al., 2005; Whitney et al., 2005; Leys et al., 2004; Cook, 2005). Several studies worldwide have documented the importance of sponges as fish habitat:

1. Freese and Wing (2003) documented that Aphrocallistes sponges provide habitat for juvenile red rockfish in the Gulf of Alaska. The authors state that the fish observed in the study benefited from the sponges through predator avoidance and that bottom trawl damage to sponge communities would be expected to have a negative impact on juvenile red rockfish survival rates. 2. Eastman and Eakin (1999) documented fishes of the genus Artedidraco are associated with sponge beds in the Ross Sea of Antarctica. 3. Tokranov (1998) described the association of the sponge sculpin (Thyriscus anoplus) with sponge beds in the northern Kuril Islands. 4. Konecki and Targett (1989) found that cod icefish (Lepidonotothen larseni) lay their eggs on the biogenic substrate provided by the spongocoel of the hexactinellid sponge Rossella nuda off Antarctica. The authors state that glass sponges serve as important nesting and refuge sites for Antarctic fishes and that destruction of sponge communities by bottom trawling could have an adverse impact of the fish ecology of the region. 5. Moreno (1980) documented several species of fishes known to utilize sponges as spawning and nesting sites and for predator avoidance.

Comprehensive Conservation Proposal Oceana, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Ocean Conservancy July 31, 2013

6. Munehara (1991) established that silverspotted sculpin (Blepsias cirrhosus) use the sponge Mycale adhaerens as a spawning bed and that the eggs benefit from the association through predator avoidance, oxygen supply, and the antibacterial and antifungal properties of the sponges. 7. Herrnkind and Butler (1994) identified sponges as “benthic juvenile shelter” for spiny lobster in Florida Bay that were found to be one of the most productive sites for survival of postlarvae. 8. Rocha et al. (2000) found that sponges are habitat 'oases' in a desert of rubble and flat rocky bottoms in Brazil. The study identified fish associations with shallow and deepwater sponges, including several obligate associations and four endemic species of fishes associated with deepwater sponges. 9. Cook (2005) (Cook et al. 2008) documented that glass sponge reefs in the Queen Charlotte Basin, British Columbia support diverse megafaunal communities distinct from surrounding habitats and act as juvenile nursery habitat for rockfish (Sebastes sp.). The following species are known to associate with corals and sponges: rougheye rockfish, redbanded rockfish, shortraker rockfish, sharpchin rockfish, Pacific Ocean perch, dusky rockfish, yelloweye rockfish, northern rockfish, shortspine thornyhead, several species of flatfish, Atka mackerel, golden king crab, shrimp, Pacific cod, walleye pollock, greenling, Greenland turbot, sablefish, and various non-commercial marine species (Krieger and Wing 2002; Else et al. 2002; Heifetz 2002). Stone 2004 found an 87% rate of association between adult Alaskan FMP species and biogenic habitat and a 100% association rate for juveniles.

Managed fish species in the PFMC management region using structure-forming invertebrates (such as corals, basketstars, brittlestars, demosponges, gooseneck barnacles, sea anemones, sea lilies, sea urchins, sea whips, tube worms, and vase sponges) as biogenic habitat include: Arrowtooth flounder, big skate, bocaccio, California skate, cowcod, Dover sole, flag rockfish, greenspotted rockfish, lingcod, longspine thornyhead, Pacific ocean perch, quillback rockfish, rosethorn rockfish, sablefish, sharpchin rockfish, shortspine thornyhead, spotted ratfish, starry rockfish, tiger rockfish, vermilion rockfish, yelloweye rockfish, and yellowtail rockfish (NMFS 2005b).

The 89 FMP species in the PFMC region in aggregate have a wide range of habitat requirements. However, the level of information for most of these FMP species and habitat associations remains at Level 1 as defined in the NMFS EFH Final Rule Guidance (i.e., presence-absence only), requiring a precautionary approach to the determination of potential adverse impacts and the identification of essential fish habitat.

ii. Coral and sponge longevity and recovery rates

It is clear that corals and sponges have growth rates on the order of millimeters per year, living to be hundreds to thousands of years old. The large glass sponges found off the coast of British Columbia have been age dated to be 220 years old, and the average age based on current

Comprehensive Conservation Proposal Oceana, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Ocean Conservancy July 31, 2013 knowledge of growth rates is 35 years (Leys and Lauzon 1998). The largest of the mounds formed by these sponges has been estimated at 9,000 years old, although evidence of iceberg gouges in the sponge reefs at the Grays Canyon site indicate these may date back to the last glacial period, 125,000 years ago (Bjorklund et al. 2008). Studies to date indicate the extreme longevity of many of these species, including:

1. Andrews et al. (2003) found growth rates of 1.74 cm/yr for Primnoa, 1 cm/yr for Corallium, and ages of 30 to over 200 years for deep-sea coral species of Davidson Seamount. 2. Cordes et al. (2001) found ages of 25-30 years for the deep-sea coral Anthomastus ritteri in California's Monterey Bay, noting that the results agree with the general notion that growth rates are reduced and longevity increased in deep-sea species. 3. Roark et al. (2003) sampled corals from Hawaii and the Gulf of Alaska and dated a living Gerardia sp. to be 2,700 years old and a black coral to be 2,200 yrs old, using radiocarbon dating techniques. 4. Leys and Lauzon (1998) found large deep water Hexactinellid sponges to be 220 years old with average growth rates of 1.98 cm/yr. 5. Probert et al. (1997) found recovery times greater than 100 years for deep-sea corals. 6. Jones (1992) review of trawl impact literature revealed that recovery time for deep-sea benthos with little natural disturbance is on the scale of decades. 7. Koslow et al. (2000) discusses the higher longevity and vulnerability of deepwater ecosystems to trawling, particularly on seamounts, which are known to have benthic fauna (i.e. corals) with high levels of endemism. 8. Risk et al. (2002) found ages of over 300 years for Primnoa resedaeformis. 9. Heikoop et al. (2002) found deep-sea corals (Primnoa) in Alaska and elsewhere have lifespans of several centuries. The authors describe the potential of these corals to contain extended records of surface productivity, deep ocean temperature and chemistry of value to climatologists and fisheries managers. 10. Reed (2002) in a study of deep water Oculina reefs along eastern Florida, noted extensive areas of Oculina rubble in part as the result of bottom fishing and major declines in commercial fish populations in the reefs from 1970-1990. Coral growth rates averaged 16.1 mm/yr.

In addition, use of estimated ages of biogenic habitats as their recovery time is likely to be a significant underestimate of actual recovery because it omits the time necessary for recolonization. Specifically, if corals and sponges take a long time to settle and begin growth in damaged areas, overall recovery is much longer. Evidence for long recolonization times is presented in Koenig et al. (2003), which found no evidence of recolonization of Oculina deep- sea corals into denuded areas and offered two explanations: continued trawling and the rubble areas do not provide suitable substrate for planular settlement of coral larvae. Additionally, the Krieger (2002) study cited in NMFS 2005a found no evidence for recolonization of corals seven years after trawling.

Comprehensive Conservation Proposal Oceana, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Ocean Conservancy July 31, 2013

iii. Hard and Mixed Substrates

Hard and mixed (hard and soft) substrates some of the least abundant benthic habitat types, yet they are among the most important habitats for fishes (NMFS 2005b ). Hard substrates are also the seafloor substrate most sensitive to bottom trawling (NRC 2002, NMFS 2005b). Areas with hard substrates, particularly those with high topographical relief, are a preferred habitat of large gorgonian corals such as Primnoa sp. and Paragorgia sp. (Watanabe et al. 2009; Tong et al. 2012).

Many groundfish species managed by the PFMC use hard bottom habitats during one or more of their life stages. These include aurora rockfish, bank rockfish, black rockfish, black-and-yellow rockfish, blackgill rockfish, blue rockfish, bocaccio, bronzespotted rockfish, brown rockfish, cabezon, calico rockfish, California scorpionfish, canary rockfish, chilipepper, China rockfish, copper rockfish, cowcod, dusky rockfish, flag rockfish, gopher rockfish, grass rockfish, greenblotched rockfish, greenspotted rockfish, greenstriped rockfish, harlequin rockfish, honeycomb rockfish, kelp greenling, kelp rockfish, leopard shark, lingcod, Mexican rockfish, olive rockfish, Pacific cod, Pacific ocean perch, pink rockfish, quillback rockfish, redstripe rockfish, rosethorn rockfish, rosy rockfish, rougheye rockfish, sharpchin rockfish, shortbelly rockfish, shortraker rockfish, silvergray rockfish, speckled rockfish, spotted ratfish, squarespot rockfish, starry rockfish, stripetail rockfish, tiger rockfish, treefish, vermilion rockfish, widow rockfish, yelloweye rockfish, yellowmouth rockfish, and yellowtail rockfish (NMFS 2005b).

iv. Submarine Canyons

Submarine canyons are known to be areas of enhanced productivity due to topographically induced upwelling along their axes (Freeland and Denman 1982). For this reason, canyons show enhanced concentrations of macrobenthos (Vetter and Dayton 1998), micronekton (Cartes et al. 1994), demersalfishes, and cetaceans (Schoenherr 1991) relative to surrounding areas on the slope and shelf. In the North Pacific, rockfishes in the genus Sebastes often inhabit the offshore edges of banks or canyons to feed on advected prey resources such as euphausiids. Submarine canyons provide habitat for larger sized rockfish that seem to prefer structures of high relief such as boulders, vertical walls, and ridges. Yoklavich et al. (2000) found high abundance of large rockfish associated with complex structural habitat in Soquel Canyon with lower size and abundance in fished areas. Because submarine canyons are typically upwelling zones, they often contain higher abundances of filter feeding invertebrates, such as corals, sponges, tunicates, and bryozoans, which contribute to the structural complexity of the seafloor.

v. Effects of Trawling on Seafloor Habitats

The literature documenting the effects of bottom trawling, dredging and other fishing on seafloor habitat is substantial, consisting of well over 100 studies globally (Johnson 2002 in NMFS 2005b, Appendix C). There is general scientific consensus that bottom trawling has wide ranging effects on habitats and ecosystems. According to the National Academy of Sciences

Comprehensive Conservation Proposal Oceana, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Ocean Conservancy July 31, 2013

National Research Council (NRC 2002) Report on the Effects of Trawling and Dredging on Seafloor Habitat, these adverse impacts include:

o changes in physical habitat of ecosystems o changes in biologic structure of ecosystems o reductions in benthic habitat complexity o changes in availability of organic matter for microbial food webs o changes in species composition o reductions in biodiversity

Bottom trawling is the leading, most widespread cause of reduced habitat complexity that is taking place among major fishing grounds along the North American continental shelf. As trawl gear can crush, displace, expose and bury marine life on the sea floor, habitats that are trawled are far more likely to have reduced overall species diversity. Those organisms remaining after extensive periods of trawling tend to be “comprised of large numbers of a few opportunistic species” (Norse and Watling 1999). The study found that the extent of the disruption of a habitat’s complexity is dependent upon how long the area has to recover between trawls, how extensive the damage is from the trawling gear, and whether the habitat is constituted primarily of quick-recovering short-lived species or of slow growing, long-lived species.

Ivory tree coral (L. pertusa) rubble in OCNMS (photo OCNMS).

The National Research Council report concludes that the impacts of trawling can lead to measurable changes in benthic habitats over time, with the greatest impact on those communities which are ecologically most complex (NRC 2002). Extended trawling over the same habitat can lead to “a shift from communities dominated by species with relatively large adult body size towards dominance by high abundances of small-bodied organisms.” More significantly, areas of intense trawling activities have the potential to be permanently affected and will lead to the emergence of short-lived organisms which are “readapted to conditions of frequent physical disturbance.” (NRC 2002).

Comprehensive Conservation Proposal Oceana, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Ocean Conservancy July 31, 2013

Fishing net entangled on large boulder with Metridium anemones Cochrane Bank, in an area proposed for proposed protection, photo courtesy of GFNMS

Biogenic habitat such as corals and glass sponge reefs are particularly vulnerable to bottom trawling (Conway et al., 1991; Cook, 2005; N. Lowrie, NOAA bycatch monitor, pers. comm. 2005, Whitmire and Clarke 2007). Many studies corroborate this conclusion, for example:

1. Hyland et al. (2004) documented bottom trawl marks in the vicinity of coral and sponge beds in the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary and observed a large proportion of dead or broken corals. 2. Engel and Kvitek (1998) compared heavily trawled and lightly trawled areas in otherwise similar regions off Big Sur, CA, finding lower epifaunal invertebrate densities at the more heavily trawled site. The authors conclude that intensive trawling significantly decreased physical habitat heterogeneity and biodiversity. 3. Grehan et al. (2003) found evidence that deep-sea corals are being destroyed by trawling, as evidenced by trawl scars, flattened coral rubble, barren sediment, and lost trawl gear. The authors state that this provides irrefutable proof of a serious threat to the marine ecosystem caused by fishing that warrants immediate emergency measures to protect the remaining corals. 4. Conway et al. (2003) studied the environmental conditions where sponge reefs are found and discovered that like deep-sea coral reefs, many of the hexactinosan sponge reefs in British Columbia have been damaged or destroyed by the groundfish trawl fishery. 5. Hall-Spencer et al. (2002) document widespread trawling damage to cold-water coral reefs at 840-1300 m depth along the West Ireland continental shelf break and at 200 m off West Norway. The trawled coral matrix was at least 4550 years old. The authors discuss the need for urgent conservation measures to protect these corals. 6. Lundalv and Jonsson (2003) found about 50% of investigated coral sites in the Kosterfjord area to be destroyed by recent bottom trawling, while the remaining areas exhibit major signs of trawl damage. 7. Heifetz et al. (2009) found significantly more corals damaged in the Aleutian Islands in sites where trawl effort was relatively higher compared to sites with little to no trawl effort. In all, 49% of the corals observed in these high effort trawl sites were damaged. 19

Comprehensive Conservation Proposal Oceana, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Ocean Conservancy July 31, 2013

8. Fossa et al. (2002) developed an estimate of 30-50% of the deep-sea coral Lophelia reefs in Norway have been damaged by bottom trawling and that fishermen claim that catches are significantly lowered in areas where the reefs are damaged. 9. Koslow et al. (2001) sampled the benthic fauna of Tasmanian seamounts finding high abundance and diversity of hard and soft corals, hydroids, sponges, ophiuroids, and sea stars, a large fraction of which were new to science. This study also found that heavy trawling has completely removed the reef aggregations. 10. Wassenberg et al. (2002) documented direct removal of sponges caused by trawling, accompanied by long-term changes in species composition over time. 11. Ardizzone and Pelusi (1983) and Ardizzone et al. (2000) found bottom trawling to reduce the quality and quantity of Posidonia oceania beds, a biogenic habitat in the Mediterranean Sea. 12. Hall-Spencer and Moore (2000) found a 70% reduction in maerl thalli habitats, which have important ecological functions, with no recovery after four years. 13. Kaiser et al. (1996) conducted a multivariate analysis showing that both beam trawling and dredging reduce the abundance of most epifaunal species in the Irish Sea. 14. Kaiser et al. (2000a) found that chronic fishing has caused a shift from communities dominated by relatively sessile, emergent, high biomass species to communities dominated by infaunal, smaller-bodied fauna. Removal of emergent fauna has thus degraded the topographic complexity of seabed habitats in areas of high fishing effort. The authors note that communities within these areas currently may be in an alternative stable state. 15. Ault et al. (1997) found conspicuous long-term damage to sponges and soft corals after one pass of a trawl and that the sponge Ircina felix and corals of the genus Pseudoplexaura appeared to be the taxa most vulnerable to breakage or dislodgement by trawling. 16. Collie et al. (1996), Collie et al. (1997), and Collie et al. (2000) found conspicuously and significantly reduced abundance of colonial epifaunal species that provide complex habitat for shrimp, polychaetes, brittle stars, and small fish at sites disturbed by bottom fishing in Georges Bank, and found that many species whose abundances were reduced were also prey for commercial fish. 17. DeAlteris et al. (2000) discuss physical impacts and biological alterations in community structure caused by trawling in New England and recommended closure areas to reduce the impact of mobile fishing gear on habitat and biodiversity. 18. Magorrian (1995) found otter trawling to remove emergent epifauna and reduce the structural complexity of mussel beds in Strangford Lough, and recommended marine reserves as a management tool. 19. McAllister and Spiller (1994) found that trawling and dredging have major impacts on marine habitats by removing protruding invertebrate animal life including sea anemones, sponges, sea squirts, crinoids and many others which provide shelter and food sources for juvenile fish and shellfish. Specific trawling effects in the study included shearing off higher hummocks, filling in low spots, changing the configuration of the bottom, removing areas more exposed to or protected from the current, exposing shellfish, worms and other sediment dwelling species to predation, and stirring up clouds of mud and other sediment that plug gills and similar structures of filter feeders. The authors recommend

Comprehensive Conservation Proposal Oceana, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Ocean Conservancy July 31, 2013

closures, control areas, and conversions to less damaging gear types. 20. Norse and Watling (1999) state that trawling damages refuges from predation and feeding places for demersal fish, which are correlated with species diversity and post settlement survivorship of some commercial species. 21. Pitcher et al. (2000) found that total annual removal of benthic fauna ranged from very low to over 80% in areas of highest trawl intensity in Australia’s Great Barrier Reef. They found that highly vulnerable populations of epifaunal species may be depleted by about 55% overall and there will be a substantial alteration in most trawled grids with a shift to less vulnerable species. 22. Reed (2002) in a study of deep water Oculina reefs along eastern Florida, noted extensive areas of Oculina rubble in part as the result of bottom fishing and major declines in commercial fish populations in the reefs from 1970-1990. 23. Rumohr et al. (1994) found reductions in abundance of epifauna and absence of inner structures (feeding burrows, living chambers, tubes) in areas impacted by trawling in the German Bight. 24. Bavestrello et al. (1997) found fishing damage to gorgonian corals in the Ligurian Sea, found slow recolonization and recovery rates for these corals, and recommended special protection for these corals as a Natural Marine Park. 25. Stone and Malecha (2003) state that “gardens of corals, sponges, and other sessile invertebrates” were similar in structural complexity to tropical coral reefs with which they shared several important characteristics including complex vertical relief and high taxonomic diversity. The authors note the particular sensitivity of these habitats to disturbance and observed anthropogenic disturbance to corals. 26. Wheeler et al. (2003) found broken coral rubble and dead coral in areas of higher trawl intensity, whereas untrawled areas had a much higher abundance of undisturbed upright coral colonies. 27. Van Santbrink and Bergman (1994) documented 70% mortality to anthozoans after two passes of a beam trawl in the southern North Sea. 28. The NMFS Alaska Fisheries Science Center website (NMFS 2004) shows several underwater video clips taken with a Remotely Operated Vehicle. Clip 9 shows heavily trawled coral habitat containing “broken-up coral debris in this area -- heavily damaged”. (http://www.afsc.noaa.gov/race/media/videos/vids_habitat.htm) 29. Anderson et al. (2003) documented high levels of coral and sponge bycatch in the New Zealand orange roughy trawl fishery. 30. MacDonald et al. (1996) made several estimates of habitat sensitivities to physical disturbance, concluding that fragile, slow recruiting animals are the most susceptible to disturbance. 31. Van Santbrink and Bergman (1994) documented mortality rates of several benthic species as a result of two passes of a trawl.

In addition, the EFH Phase I Report reviewed several additional studies on the effects of trawling on seafloor habitats that generally corroborated previous studies documenting the adverse impacts of trawling, which we include here by reference (PFMC 2012). An additional study not referenced in the EFH Phase I Report, Puig et al. 2012 “Ploughing the Deep Seafloor”, also presented new information not included in the EFH Phase I report indicating that trawling in soft

Comprehensive Conservation Proposal Oceana, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Ocean Conservancy July 31, 2013 sediment habitats has adverse impacts (both geological and biological) similar to plowing practices in terrestrial agriculture. The study states:

Here we show that on upper continental slopes, the reworking of the deep sea floor by trawling gradually modifies the shape of the submarine landscape over large spatial scales. We found that trawling-induced sediment displacement and removal from fishing grounds causes the morphology of the deep sea floor to become smoother over time, reducing its original complexity as shown by high-resolution seafloor relief maps.

C. How new or newly available information indicates that the EFH description, its components, or associated management measures should be modified.

In its April 2013 Report to the Council, the EFH Review Committee highlighted the following key conclusions about the new and newly available information:

b. Hard seabed habitat types are less abundant, or rare, in comparison to soft seabed though the relative proportions of each type within depth strata are fairly consistent across biogeographic subregions. There is a significantly new understanding of hard substrate shape and distribution in federal waters inside and outside EFH conservation areas in Northern Washington and throughout Oregon. However, the 2005 understanding of hard substrate distribution in federal waters off California is essentially unchanged (with the exception of the Gulf of the Farallon Islands region).

c. Much of the new information on biogenic habitat is in the form of a large database of records of deep-sea corals and sponges. There are numerous sites outside EFH conservations areas where corals and sponges have been observed in higher relative numbers off all three states.

d. The level of bottom trawl fishing effort within closed areas is fairly consistent both pre- and post- EFH conservation areas, indicating that those closures resulted in minimal disruption of bottom trawl fishery dynamics.

e. Midwater trawl fishing is permissible within all Amendment 19 EFH conservation areas since it was assumed to have no contact with the seafloor. Annually, midwater trawling occurs over 8-31% of EFH conservation areas where bottom trawling is prohibited, and bottom contact is estimated by the fleet to occur on up to 25% of tows predominantly in soft sediment habitats, as referenced in the Phase 1 Report.

f. There is new quantitative and species specific prey information for 11 groundfish species enabling assessments of “major prey” for those species.

In addition, the information on the locations of bottom trawl effort and relative intensity all represents new information relevant to the minimization of potential adverse impacts and the

Comprehensive Conservation Proposal Oceana, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Ocean Conservancy July 31, 2013 practicability modifications to current management measures. There is also new information documenting the associations between specific groundfish species and biogenic habitat types, further confirming that bottom trawl prohibitions are warranted for areas containing biogenic habitat features. All of this new information has created substantial new opportunities to further the Council’s ongoing mandate to identify, designate and protect essential fish habitats.

III. Proposal Development and Outreach To Date

Our general approach to this proposal was to begin by assimilating and assessing all the new and previously available data to identify areas of interest on a regional basis.

We made an explicit attempt to meet on multiple occasions with the four coastal Treaty Tribes in Washington State – the Quinault Indian Nation, Quileute Tribe, Hoh Tribe and the Makah Tribe- with in-person visits to Tribal Reservations in 2011 and 2013, initially to discuss general approaches, communication, and working relationships, and later to discuss specific areas of interest and draft proposal ideas.

Once we put together initial draft areas of interest, we initiated discussions on a regional basis with fishing industry stakeholders. Some of these discussions progressed significantly to the point of consensus agreement (i.e., Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary proposal resulting from a stakeholder process facilitated by MBNMS) in some regions and fruitful dialogue generating multiple iterations and revisions of draft proposed areas in others. Due to staff, time, and resource limitations, we were not able to meet with stakeholders in all regions and a major theme of our discussions was a need for more time, therefore some sections of this proposal are more fleshed out than others. In California, we had in-person meetings in the fishing ports of Santa Barbara, Morro Bay, Monterey/Moss Landing, Half Moon Bay, San Francisco, and Ft. Bragg over the past two months. We provided draft maps in early July 2013 to the California Risk Pool and other fishing organizations, and received input that resulted in significant revisions to our initial drafts now reflected in this proposal.

We had meetings with fishermen in the Newport, Oregon and with the Coos Bay Trawlers Association. We met with the director of the Oregon Trawl Commission and we had a meeting with Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife to review our draft areas of interest. In Washington, we had meetings with natural resource staff at the Quinault Indian Nation, Hoh and Quileute Tribes. We met with Makah fisheries management staff at PFMC meetings. We had meetings to discuss Oceana’s areas of interest with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. We also used the last several PFMC meetings as opportunities to meet with various fishing industry stakeholders, agency staff, and PFMC staff to provide outreach and gather additional feedback.

For all regions, we intend to have further dialogue with affected stakeholders in the coming months in the hopes of finding additional common ground, further refining our proposed modifications, and gathering local knowledge and input about potential effects of proposed management changes. We hope to work closely with the EFH Committee, the various other Council committees, the Groundfish Management Team, and the Council to continue to refine

Comprehensive Conservation Proposal Oceana, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Ocean Conservancy July 31, 2013 this proposal and others as the EFH process moves forward through an iterative process that is responsive to additional discussions and feedback.

IV. Relationship of Coastal Treaty Tribes’ Usual and Accustomed Areas to EFH Conservation

Fishing is a vital part of protecting Tribal identity, cultural heritage, and economic viability. We have a shared interest in ensuring a sustainable, resilient, and diverse ocean ecosystem, as the health of fisheries depends intimately on the protection of fish habitat. As co-managers with the federal government and State of Washington, Tribes exercise their right to self-management, and continue to practice the right to fish, hunt, and gather shellfish, among other activities, within Usual and Accustomed areas extending into the Pacific Ocean off the outer coast of Washington. These rights also include the right to undertake conservation initiatives and protect habitat in Usual and Accustomed areas under Tribal management. The federal government and State of Washington have an obligation and responsibility to formally consult with Tribes regarding management activities that affect Tribal rights and mutual resources. Groundfish such as sablefish, halibut, lingcod, and rockfish are some of the Tribes’ key resources. Therefore, the protection of seafloor habitats affecting the health of groundfish stocks is a critical component in ensuring the sustainability of this important resource.

V. A detailed description of the proposed actions, including where applicable:

A. Spatial changes to currently protected areas

See Appendix A and B for detailed maps depicting the proposed boundary changes to existing EFH Conservation areas, new EFH Conservation areas, proposed open areas and analyses of bottom trawl fishing intensity, known locations of biogenic habitat and observed coral and sponge bycatch (Figures A.1-A.42 and B.1-B.2). Latitude and longitude coordinates for all the waypoints of each proposed modification are included in Appendix D. Figures 2-7 below provide a visual overview of the proposed modifications to existing EFH Conservation Areas (both proposed open and proposed closed areas) and to the trawl footprint closure. The Site Descriptions chapter provides a written summary of each site and Appendix C provides detailed analysis of each site including biological, geological and socioeconomic characteristics of the proposed sites. A Geographic Information System (GIS) shapefile of the areas proposed to be opened and closed is submitted along with this written proposal and the attached maps and analyses.

Spatial changes were developed with consideration and analysis of GIS datasets provided in the EFH 5-year Review Catalog (EFH Data Portal), available at: http://efh- catalog.coas.oregonstate.edu/overview/

Comprehensive Conservation Proposal Oceana, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Ocean Conservancy July 31, 2013

Figure 2.

Comprehensive Conservation Proposal Oceana, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Ocean Conservancy July 31, 2013

Figure 5.

Comprehensive Conservation Proposal Oceana, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Ocean Conservancy July 31, 2013

* The potential reopening of state waters in Monterey Bay is noted here as an initial draft concept that has emerged from ongoing discussions and negotiations with the fishing industry about changes to existing bottom trawl closures throughout this region. This area is currently closed to all bottom trawling by the California Fish and Game Code and any reopening to bottom trawling would require California legislation, in a separate process outside the purview of the PFMC or the EFH 5- year review. The potential reopening is presented in this proposal for analytical purposes only to indicate how the overall suite of protections could change based on a package including adoption of the proposed EFH regulatory changes and California legislative change specific to the Monterey Bay area in California state waters.

Figure 6. 29

Comprehensive Conservation Proposal Oceana, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Ocean Conservancy July 31, 2013

Figure 7. 30

Comprehensive Conservation Proposal Oceana, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Ocean Conservancy July 31, 2013

B. Gear Regulation Changes

The EFH Committee concluded based on new information in the Phase I Report and NMFS Synthesis:

Midwater trawl fishing is permissible within all Amendment 19 EFH conservation areas since it was assumed to have no contact with the seafloor. Annually, midwater trawling occurs over 8-31% of EFH conservation areas where bottom trawling is prohibited, and bottom contact is estimated by the fleet to occur on up to 25% of tows predominantly in soft sediment habitats, as referenced in the Phase 1 Report. -Supplemental EFHRC Report, April 2013, Agenda Item D.6.c.

Based on this newly available information, it is apparent that bottom contact with midwater trawl gear is likely occurring within EFH Conservation Areas where bottom trawl gear is prohibited, which arguably compromises the management objective of protecting these seafloor habitats from mobile bottom tending gear. Therefore, in concert with the other proposed changes to enforcement in Section 2.d below, we propose the gear restrictions for all EFH Conservation Areas be modified to prohibit all bottom contact by midwater trawl gear. The intent of these EFH Conservation Areas is to prohibit trawl contact on the seafloor, and the Phase I Report and NMFS Synthesis provided new information that significant bottom contact is occurring by midwater trawls, and that midwater trawl effort has a high overlap with EFH Conservation Areas. In the past, enforcement of bottom contact by midwater trawls presented technical challenges that can now be addressed with new enforcement technologies, such as electronic logbooks, hydraulic sensors, bottom contact sensors, and depth sensors. We hope to discuss this concept with the EFH Committee, fishing industry, and enforcement consultants to determine the most appropriate and cost-effective means to enforce this new proposed gear restriction.

C. Changes to the description and identification of groundfish EFH and its components

i) Areas deeper than 3,500m in the west coast EEZ

We propose to add all waters deeper than 3,500m within the West Coast EEZ to the designation of Pacific Coast Groundfish EFH for the purpose of giving NMFS and the PFMC the authority to establish the proposed bottom trawl closure (Area 75 of this proposal). The following discussion reviews the basis for which NMFS did not approve this component of the Council’s unanimous 2005 EFH Decision and provides options for moving forward.

Record of Decision for Amendment 19

In its motion adopting Amendment 19, the Council recommended protecting all waters deeper than 700 fathoms from bottom trawling. NMFS only partially approved this action, however, limiting the extent of the footprint closure to 3,500 meter depth. NMFS acknowledged in the Amendment 19 Record of Decision that “bottom trawling outside 3500 m . . . is likely to have long-lasting environmental consequences.” National Marine Fisheries Service, Record of Decision: Final EIS for EFH Designation and Minimization of Adverse Impacts at 18 (2006). 31

Comprehensive Conservation Proposal Oceana, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Ocean Conservancy July 31, 2013

NMFS continued on to state that hydrothermal vents, soft-bottom sediments and hard bottom areas with biogenic habitat such as deep sea corals beyond 3500m “are likely to be highly sensitive to impact, including very low levels of fishing effort (e.g. a single trawl), and have extended recovery times (over 7 years)” and concluded that they “can be very sensitive to bottom trawling and would take a long time to recover from this impact.” Id. at 24.

The agency, however, declined to designate the area as EFH or otherwise protect it. NMFS stated that little information existed about the value of the area beyond 3500m, but that the “best scientific data currently available does not support the presence of species managed under this plan at those depths,” id., and “there is no indication that the area provides habitat for managed species,” id. at 25. Having declined to designate the area as EFH, NMFS went on to conclude that it lacked authority to implement protections for the area on the grounds that “there is not the necessary link between applying the management measures outside EFH and the conservation of the fishery or minimization of adverse effects on EFH.” Id.

The agency asserted there would likely not be any bottom trawling in this depth range “with the rare exception of speculative trawling” but admitted that “current trends in fishing activity show that the industry continues to move farther offshore.” Id. Nonetheless, the agency concluded that it “may not exercise its authority under the Magnuson- Stevens Act to close these areas to fishing.” Id.

Finally, NMFS noted Magnuson-Stevens Act reauthorization that was underway at the time, and mentioned language that was being proposed to “designate such zones . . . to protect deep sea corals.” Id.. The language ultimately was added to the Magnuson-Stevens Act by Congress, in the 2006 reauthorization statute. See 16 U.S.C. § 1853(b)(2)(B).

Final Rule Implementing Amendment 19

The agency largely repeated these justifications in its Final Rule implementing Amendment 19. It “acknowledges that features that occur beyond 3500 m include hydrothermal vents, soft- bottom sediments, and hard bottom areas with high biogenic structures such as deep sea corals. All or most of the deep sea environment may be highly sensitive to impact, including at very low levels of fishing effort (e.g. a single contact), and have extended recovery times (over seven years).” 71 Fed. Reg. 27,408, 27,410 (May 11, 2006). Nonetheless, the agency went on to assert that there is little to no information regarding the value of the area deeper than 3500m and that “the best scientific data currently available does not support the presence of managed species under this plan at those depths, there is no indication that the area provides habitat for managed species, and the fishery is not prosecuted in the areas.” Id. It concluded, therefore, that “there is no connection between the area and groundfish EFH.” Id.

The agency went on to state that gear restrictions in areas of the EEZ that are not designated as EFH cannot be approved because the agency could “not find a link between bottom trawling in areas deeper than 3500-meters and adverse impacts on EFH or conservation of the fishery.” 71 Fed. Reg. 27,408, 27,410 (May 11, 2006). NMFS concluded that the Magnuson Act “does not provide authority” for bottom trawl closures in areas outside those designated as EFH “because it

Comprehensive Conservation Proposal Oceana, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Ocean Conservancy July 31, 2013 is not necessary to do so under Amendment 19.” Id. The agency did, however, exercise authority to add a 100m precautionary adjustment beyond the maximum known depth of FMP species, “to account for the paucity of data on groundfish distributions and habitat types in deep water.” Id.

Ultimately, NMFS rejected the precautionary approach: faced with a lack of data, the agency affirmatively concluded that there was neither evidence of potential adverse impacts to features beyond 3500m depth bottom trawling, nor a link between impacts to areas deeper than 3500 m and conservation and management of the fishery. Id.

NMFS did opine that if the ongoing Magnuson-Stevens Act reauthorization process resulted in Councils having a duty to “designate such zones . . . to protect deep sea corals from physical damage from fishing gear,” then the agency would have authority “for ecosystem protection.” As noted previously, the statutory language on deep sea corals was indeed passed during reauthorization.

We have identified five pathways for the Council and NMFS to close areas deeper than 3500m to bottom trawling under current law. The Council and NMFS should consider:

1. Designating the area as EFH based on the deepest observation of FMP Groundfish species (3400m) plus an increased precautionary buffer to reflect the fact that most of the area deeper than 3400m has not been sampled. This action would increase the 100m precautionary buffer that was used in Amendment 19 to a larger buffer of at least 1500m in order to encompass the deepest identified area within the West Coast EEZ.

* This is our preferred, recommended option.

2. Designating the area deeper than 3500m as EFH based on new estimations of depths where FMP species may occur. This could be done via re-evaluation of data for existing FMP species, or by adding new species to the FMP. For example, the potential addition of other grenadier species to the Groundfish FMP, currently being contemplated in Amendment 24, could bring the maximum observed depth of FMP groundfish to ranges significantly beyond the deepest part of the West Coast EEZ.

3. Protecting the area without designating it as EFH by using the discretionary authority contained in Section 303(b)(2)(B) of the MSA. This section of the law was added in the 2006 reauthorization, and allows for gear restriction zones to protect deep sea corals:

Any fishery management plan which is prepared by the Council, or by the Secretary, with respect to any fishery, may— (2)(B) designate such zones in areas where deep sea corals are identified under section 408, to protect deep sea corals from physical damage from fishing gear or 33

Comprehensive Conservation Proposal Oceana, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Ocean Conservancy July 31, 2013

to prevent loss or damage to such fishing gear from interactions with deep sea corals, after considering long-term sustainable uses of fishery resources in such areas . . . .

16 U.S.C. § 1853(b).

4. Protecting the area without designating it as EFH using the discretionary authority contained in Section 303(b)(2)(A) of the MSA. This section of the law was added in the 2006 reauthorization and authorizes the designation of zones where specific gear types are not permitted:

Any fishery management plan which is prepared by the Council, or by the Secretary, with respect to any fishery, may— (2)(A) designate zones where, and periods when, fishing shall be limited, or shall not be permitted, or shall be permitted only by specified types of fishing vessels or with specified types and quantities of fishing gear;

16 U.S.C. § 1853(b). Note that unlike closures established using subsection (B), closures under this subsection need not relate to deep sea corals.

5. Protecting the area without designating it as EFH by using the discretionary authority contained in Section 303(b)(12) of the MSA. This section of the law was added in the 2006 reauthorization, and provides general management authority to conserve non-target species and habitats:

Any fishery management plan which is prepared by the Council, or by the Secretary, with respect to any fishery, may— (12) include management measures in the plan to conserve target and non-target species and habitats, considering the variety of ecological factors affecting fishery populations.

16 U.S.C. § 1853(b).

All of these options that would give the PFMC and NMFS the authority to close areas deeper than 3,500m to bottom trawling. The first two options would be in the context of the EFH authority and therefore are preferable. If any of the latter options are determined by NMFS and the PFMC to be the most appropriate pathway, and Phase 3 of the EFH process moves forward, we recommend the change be included in the regulatory amendment package associated with changes to EFH regulations.

ii. Determination of Major Prey Taxa for West Coast Groundfish

Federal regulations instruct fishery management councils to list the “major prey species” for managed species in each FMP. 50 C.F.R. § 600.815(a)(7). Once major prey species are identified, potentially adverse impacts to major prey species, such as harvesting or habitat 34

Comprehensive Conservation Proposal Oceana, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Ocean Conservancy July 31, 2013 destruction, can be monitored and managed. Id. However, no definition of what constitutes “major prey species” is provided in federal regulations. We provide in this section the results of a recent project designed to develop criteria for determining major prey species, and apply those criteria to initial data available for Groundfish FMP species. This project was conducted by Mr. Joseph Bizzarro, and built on work conducted by NMFS in the EFH Synthesis Report, where the diet compositions of 11 Groundfish FMP species were estimated (NMFS 2013). The methodology developed by Mr. Bizzarro produces a “Major Prey Index,” (MPI) which displays relative prey species importance. Users can apply criteria or statistical analyses to this index, in order to draw conclusions about major prey species. While the methodology will likely continue to develop and become more refined, we believe the approach outlined below is sound and provides the Council with a concrete starting point for designating major prey species for West Coast Groundfish. After the methodology description below, we apply a recommended simple criterion to the MPI developed by Mr. Bizzarro, in order to generate conclusions about major prey species for West Coast Groundfish. We urge the Council to adopt the methodology developed by Mr. Bizzarro, as presented below, and to designate the recommended prey taxa as major prey species.

a. Methodology

Major, or key, ecosystem components are often distinguished through modeling exercises involving population dynamics of predators and prey, sometimes coupled with fishery interactions (Gaichas et al. 2010; Lassalle et al. 2011; Pikitch et al. 2012). Such an exercise, however, is resource-intensive and may not necessarily yield results relevant to the question at hand, as major prey species are indicated by their role as important forage for commercially important groundfishes, rather than their roles as ecosystem indicators or broad food web components, as may be gleaned from complex models. For this reason, an alternative method of prey importance evaluation was required. Biological metrics and indices have been commonly employed to evaluate ecological data for research (Krebs 1999) and fishery management (Zador and Gaichas 2010), and were used in this project to evaluate the relative importance of prey species among the 11 priority groundfishes.

Several metrics were used to assess prey importance for the 11 priority West Coast groundfish species, including: 1) Mean Diet Composition, 2) Prey-Specific Diet Composition, 3) Predator Linkages, and 4) Minimum Diet Contribution (Table 1). These are commonly employed metrics in the analysis of trophic data, and were chosen because they complement each other in collectively estimating prey importance. The Index of Relative Importance (Pinkas 1971) has been historically used in similar instances but is mathematically flawed (Brown et al. 2010). An improved index, the Prey-Specific Index of Relative Importance (Brown et al. 2010), was used as a basis for the calculation of Prey-Specific Diet Composition in this study. Metrics were standardized by ranking the individual values for each prey type. Ranking values within a metric also precluded any overwhelming contributions by a particular prey type, equalizing the relative magnitude of prey values across metrics. The two diet composition metrics were adjusted for data quality, as detailed below. The number of predator linkages was highly dependent on sample size (r2 = 0.449, t = 2.708, P = 0.024). However, no adjustment was made to this metric to avoid adding linkages where they are not demonstrated or adjusting for fractions of linkages.

Comprehensive Conservation Proposal Oceana, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Ocean Conservancy July 31, 2013

This finding does, however, emphasize the high variability and inconsistent quality in diet composition data among the 11 priority groundfish species. Minimum Diet Contribution was not affected by sample size (r2 = 0.023, t = -0.456, P = 0.659) and was therefore not adjusted.

It is important to evaluate the quality of diet composition data, especially for generalist predators like groundfishes, because insufficient sampling can result in poor diet composition estimates (Ferry and Cailliet 1996). Errors in diet composition estimates can arise from limited temporal or spatial sampling, insufficient sample sizes, or an overall lack of scientific attention. Raw diet composition data is often evaluated for sample size sufficiency using cumulative prey, or rarefaction, curves (Hurturbia 1973; Brodeur and Pearcy 1984; Gotelli and Colwell 2001). However, this technique cannot be used with summarized data and does not account for the other factors that can bias dietary estimates. To account for potential inaccuracies in diet composition estimates, the following data quality metrics were established: 1) Scientific Coverage, 2) Sample Size, 3) Spatial Coverage, and 4) Temporal Coverage (Table 1). Calculations for each metric and data quality ranks are provided (Table 2). Sample size weightings were taken directly from NMFS (2013) and are based on cumulative prey curve simulations for generalist groundfishes. Spatial coverage was calculated based on the presence of diet composition data among four zones: 1) Washington, 2) Oregon, 3) Northern California (Oregon to Monterey, CA), and 4) Southern California (Monterey, CA to Mexico). Distributions of each groundfish were determined (Love et al. 2005), and species were only assessed based on their zones of occurrence. Overall data quality is presented on a relative scale, with Pacific hake having the most robust data set and Yelloweye rockfish having the least (Table 2). The overall data quality value was used in weighting diet composition data (thus affecting Mean Diet Composition and Prey-Specific Diet Composition metrics). For instance, the weighted dietary contribution of Petrale sole was half that of Pacific hake.

The four prey importance metrics were evaluated for redundancy before being summed to create a Major Prey Index (MPI). Mean Diet Composition was highly correlated (r = 0.60, 0.64, 0.88) with the other metrics and was therefore removed from analysis. The remaining three metrics were not well correlated (0.20, 0.36, 0.57) and were retained. After summing metrics, the MPI was scaled to a range of 0-1 using the maximum aggregate value, so that the contribution of each prey taxa could be directly compared on a relative scale. Although EFH legislation describes “major prey species,” the prey categories used in this data set, and developed during the recent EFH Synthesis (NMFS 2013), are generalized because the available data did not lend itself to more specific taxonomic designations (Table 3). Therefore, the MPI is necessarily used here to describe major prey “taxa” instead of major prey “species.”

MPI results suggest that euphausiids are the most important prey taxa for the 11 studied groundfishes (Table 4). Euphausiids are especially significant to Pacific hake (46.4% of diet composition) and Sharpchin rockfish (34.3%) and occur in the diets of 9 groundfishes. Caridean shrimps (MPI=0.84), Panaeid and Sergestid shrimps (0.83), and Brachyuran crabs (0.83) are also major prey taxa or similar importance. Caridean shrimps are consumed by 10 of the 11 studied groundfishes, and are most substantial in the diet of rosethorn rockfish (33.3% of diet composition). Panaeid and Sergestid shrimps (7 links) and Brachyuran crabs (6) are not as prevalent in groundfish diet compositions, but register major contributions in the diets of

Comprehensive Conservation Proposal Oceana, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Ocean Conservancy July 31, 2013 greenstriped rockfish (43.0%), and Yelloweye rockfish (26.6%) and Longspine thornyheads (19.2%), respectively. Teleost prey, consisting of Flatfishes (MPI = 0.80) and Myctophids (0.78), are of slightly lesser importance to the studied groundfishes. Flatfishes are a highly significant prey taxon for Petrale sole (43.0% of diet composition) but generally contribute minor proportions to the diets of the other 5 species in which they occurred. A similar situation was evidenced by Myctophids (25.6% of sharpchin rockfish diet, < 6% of diet among 6 other predators). The next several prey taxa, as ranked by MPI (Table 4), have few predator linkages but are of extreme importance in the diet of a single groundfish species: Anomuran crabs (4 links, 40.0% of rosethorn rockfish diet); polychaetes (3 links, 53.8% of Dover sole diet), Echinoderms (3 links, 31.6% of Dover sole diet); and Jellyfishes and gelatinous zooplankton (3 links, 31.3% of darkblotched rockfish diet). The final two major prey taxa by MPI, Teleosts (0.59) and Crustaceans (0.55), are extremely generalized and therefore of little practical use. Only 11 instances of a prey taxon contributing > 25% to diet composition were noted, reflecting the strong generalist tendencies of the studied groundfish assemblage.

The MPI, created for this project, represents a quantitative means to objectively determine major prey taxa for West Coast groundfish. The creation of this metric is intended to improve current capabilities regarding the designation of major prey species in EFH regulations. Some caveats and considerations should be addressed, however, concerning the creation of the MPI. First, some of the generalized prey categories available for analysis may be too nonspecific to enable accurate estimates of prey habitat. For example, the taxonomic level of the ten most important prey categories ranged from family (Myctophidae) to phylum (Echinodermata, Cnidaria). More genus and species-specific diet composition data are needed to better resolve major prey taxa so that their habitats can be effectively determined. Second, broad taxonomic categories, such as unidentified teleost, may contain more accurately identified prey, such as osmerids and rockfishes. In these instances, MPI values will under-represent the true importance of these prey taxa. Third, because highly correlated data confound conclusions, the Mean Diet Composition metric was removed from analysis. This removal had only a minor impact on the final MPI results; inclusion of the Mean Diet Composition metric increased the relative magnitude of the prey taxa in the upper quartile, but did not change their composition and resulted in only a single switch in ranks. Mean Diet Composition is an important metric that would be useful for inclusion with a different, less correlated data set.

In terms of use of the MPI, interested users can use randomization tests or other statistical analyses to draw conclusions, or apply a simpler quartile-based approach to designating “major” prey species.

b. Recommendation

In order to designate “major” prey taxa, we applied a criterion in which the upper three quartiles of MPI were considered to be of importance. We believe this wide spectrum is appropriate given the relative paucity of diet composition data for Groundfish FMP species (11 of 91 species), as well as the relatively high scoring of the top taxa (Euphasiids). Applying this criterion, we recommend designating the following taxa as major prey species:

Comprehensive Conservation Proposal Oceana, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Ocean Conservancy July 31, 2013

Euphasiids Copepods Caridean Shrimps Loligonidae Penaeid and Sergestid Shrimps Osmeriformes Brachyuran Crabs Sculpins Pleuronectiformes Zoarcidae Myctophidae Clupidae Anomuran Crabs Gadiformes Polychaetes Hexagramidae Echinoderms Axiidae Jellyfishes (and other unidentified gelatinous Scorpaeniformes (Other and Unidentified) zooplankton) Herrings Teleosts (Other and Unidentified) Mysids Crustaceans (Other and Unidentified) Ammodytidae Shrimps (Unidentified) Engraulidae Amphipods Isopods Rockfishes Tunicates

Table 1. Metrics used in the assessment of prey importance and diet composition data quality for the 11 priority West Coast groundfish species whose diet compositions were summarized as part of the National Marine Fisheries Service's (NMFS) Groundfish Essential Fish Habitat Synthesis (NMFS 2013).

Assessment Metric Definition Prey Importance Mean Diet Composition Mean proportion of prey type in diet among species Prey-Specific Diet Composition Mean proportion of prey type in diet among species that consume it Predator Linkages Number of species that consume prey type Minimum Diet Contribution Number of species in which prey type is > 25% of diet Data Quality Scientific Coverage Number of studies Sample Size Number of aggregate samples among studies Spatial Coverage Spatial coverage of studies Temporal Coverage Temporal coverage of studies

Table 2. Data Quality ranks for each of the 11 priority groundfish used in analysis. n = Scientific Coverage, N = Sample Size, Spatial = Spatial Coverage, Temporal = Temporal coverage. Data were ranked as follows: n: 1(0), 2(1-3), 3(4-7), 4(>7); N = 1(1), 2(2-10), 4(11-25), 8(26-50), 16(51-100), 32(>100); Spatial: 1(1 zone), 2(2 zones), 3(3 zones), 4(4 zones); Temporal: 1(<1983), 2(1983-1997); 3(>1997).

Common Name Scientific Name n N Spatial Temporal Overall Pacific hake Merluccius productus 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.78 1.00 Sablefish Anoplopoma fimbria 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.93 Longspine thornyhead Sebastolobus altivelis 0.50 1.00 1.00 0.92 0.90 Dover sole Microstomus pacificus 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.63 0.89 Lingcod Ophiodon elongatus 0.75 1.00 0.75 0.82 0.88 Greenstriped rockfish Sebastes elongatus 0.50 0.50 0.75 0.84 0.68 Rosethorn rockfish Sebastes helvomaculatus 0.50 0.50 0.50 1.00 0.66 Sharpchin rockfish Sebastes zacentrus 0.50 0.25 0.50 1.00 0.60 Darkblotched rockfish Sebastes crameri 0.50 0.13 0.75 0.88 0.60 Petrale sole Eopsetta jordani 0.50 0.25 0.50 0.63 0.50 Yelloweye rockfish Sebastes ruberrimus 0.50 0.25 0.25 0.75 0.46 38

Comprehensive Conservation Proposal Oceana, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Ocean Conservancy July 31, 2013

D. Enforcement: Proposed Changes to Enforcement of Bottom Trawl Closures.

Key areas of Essential Fish Habitat for groundfish are in many cases located in close proximity to high value fishing areas. Therefore, efforts to “minimize to the extent practicable adverse effects to EFH by fishing” are largely dependent on the ability to develop highly tailored and enforceable spatial boundaries for open and closed areas to bottom trawling at a high/fine level of spatial resolution. The current enforcement of spatial bottom trawl closures (RCAs, EFH, etc.) uses Vessel Monitoring Systems (VMS) with a ping rate of approximately one hour. At this ping rate with a trawl speed of 2 to 3 knots, effective VMS enforcement will require the size of the trawl closure to approach 3-4 miles in diameter. While VMS as currently configured with the one hour ping rate is appropriate for large-scale closures where there is less concern about fishing near the boundaries, it is insufficient for enforcement of fine-scale closures and boundaries.

The problems with enforcement under the current system include an inability to know the precise trawl path and difficulty discerning whether fishing is actively taking place. The relevant consideration for EFH enforcement is whether the trawl net is in contact with the seafloor. As a result, bottom trawl fishermen have uncertainty about whether they may be committing a violation when they are fishing in close proximity to closed areas, if they drift into a closed area while retrieving their net, or if they drift into a closed area as a result of hanging their gear on a snag or loss of engine power. Conversely, enforcement officials have uncertainty about where exactly fishermen are fishing, whether they are intentionally fishing inside closed areas, and when active fishing is taking place. The practical effect of the current enforcement regime is that it is difficult to design small scale closures that allow fishing in proximity to sensitive EFH areas. As a result, closed area boundaries around habitat features must be much larger than the boundaries of the feature itself to ensure protection, at the potential expense of closing valuable fishing grounds where impacts would be minimal.

We propose that as part of the revised EFH regulations, a new enforcement regime is implemented coastwide to include:

 Changing the VMS ping rates from 1 hour to 15 minute intervals to more precisely indicate the location of the vessel track while fishing is occurring  Requiring the use of hydraulic sensors to determine precisely when trawl nets are retrieved and deployed.  Requiring depth sensors to record the active fishing depth of the trawl net in relation to the seafloor.  Requiring the recording and reporting of these sensory data by means of an electronic log book.

These changes will allow fishermen to fish in close proximity to the boundaries of closed areas without fear of being accused of fishing in a restricted area and enforcement will have 39

Comprehensive Conservation Proposal Oceana, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Ocean Conservancy July 31, 2013 confidence that fishermen are in compliance, hence removing all ambiguity. In other words, there will be no need for “buffers” around habitat features to ensure their protection and lines can be drawn tightly to encompass actual trawl tow track lines to ensure precautionary habitat protection.

The electronic logbook (E log) may be the most important and appropriate tool, potentially avoiding the need to increase VMS ping rates, though these tools may also be used in concert. As envisioned, development of a west coast E log would follow the same strategy as the development of the west coast electronic fish ticket (E ticket). The E log would emulate the numerous state (paper based) log books through a series of drop down fields. Data collection would be done through sensors and vessel operator inputs. Sensors on the hydraulics and net drum(s) would lay down a lat/long and time/date stamp recording on a laptop located in the wheel house. Depth sensors would record the “fishing” depth of the net in relation to the sea floor. The vessel operator would input species tow data on a per tow basis. The data package could be uploaded through the vessel VMS system for real time reporting, or alternatively could be sent as an email attachment once in range of a cell tower while the vessel is returning to port or within 24 hours of off load (same reporting requirement as E Tickets).

Once the data has been received, state, Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission (PSMFC), and Federal fishery managers and scientists would use the data consistent with current practices, but in a much more timely fashion and with more confidence in the data. OLE Trawl Rationalization (TRat) enforcement technicians would evaluate the data for compliance in relations to restricted areas. The fact that these same technicians currently monitor VMS data ensures the monitoring is being conducted by individuals who are familiar with the fleet, its fishing practices, and the locations and relevance of the restricted areas, to include: RCAs, EFH, Sanctuaries, state waters boundaries, and MPAs.

In summary, these measures will allow more targeted and refined management of EFH, better achieving the dual objectives of minimizing adverse impacts to habitat while maintaining vibrant fisheries. These measures will provide greater security to fishermen and confidence in their compliance. These changes are consistent and enabled by the current move towards Electronic Monitoring of west coast fisheries, including catch shares. Therefore, the additional costs of implementation in the context of spatial management should be lower.

The enforcement components of this proposal are intended to be implemented in concert with the other proposed regulatory changes contained in this proposal, but may be considered and analyzed independently.

VI. Analysis and Supporting Information for Proposed Spatial Changes

The following sections provide additional “discretionary” but relevant information and analysis of the proposed EFH Conservation Areas and modifications to existing areas.

Comprehensive Conservation Proposal Oceana, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Ocean Conservancy July 31, 2013

A. Description of Analysis Conducted of Proposed Areas:

In Appendix C, we provide results of our spatial analysis. For each dataset, we provide a “baseline analysis” of the amount of each data feature contained in areas currently in permanent bottom trawl protections. We defined permanent bottom trawl protections to include all state waters where trawling is prohibited, state marine protected areas, and all EFH conservation areas (including the 700-fm closure) where bottom trawling is prohibited. This is similar to the NMFS Synthesis Layer “MPAs Prohibiting Bottom Trawling”, however, we did not include the Trawl RCA as a permanent trawl closure in our analysis, as that closure is currently in place for the purpose of rebuilding overfished species, therefore should not be considered permanent. We conduct this baseline analysis on a coastwide scale (EEZ), by the nine biogeographic regions used in the EFH Synthesis Report, by the waters off each of the three states, and by National Marine Sanctuary.

We then present an analysis of how much of each data feature is contained in each individual proposed area modification, differentiating whether each area is a reopening of an existing EFH Conservation Area or a new/expanded bottom trawl closure.

Lastly we present an analysis of how much of each data feature would be included in the overall suite of permanent bottom trawl closures if the proposed regulatory changes were adopted at the same coastwide and regional scales, for the purpose of evaluating the proposal package as a whole relative to the baseline.

The following sections describe how each data feature was analyzed:

Area Calculations: For each proposed spatial modification, we provide the total area (square statute miles) proposed, and the area of hard, mixed, and soft substrates contained in the proposed modification based on the EFH Phase I Report data. We also provide the depth range (minimum and maximum) for each area.

Biogenic habitat observations: For each area, we provide the number of individual coral, sponge, and pennatulid observations contained in the area based on the version of the NOAA Deep Sea Coral and Sponge Database provided on the EFH Data Portal. Since many of these observations overlap based on sampling intensity, we also summed the total area of 1 x 1 km grid cells contained in each area using the Coral/Sponge Presence and Pennatulid Presence datasets in the NMFS Synthesis. We also summed the total mean counts of coral/sponge abundance contained in each area from the 2 x 2 km grid cells in the Coral/Sponge Abundance and Pennatulid Abundance datasets in the NMFS Synthesis.

Predicted Coral Habitat Suitability For each area, we provide the total area of “High” (score of 4 referring to upper quartile) Predicted Coral Habitat Suitability grid cells for All Coral Taxa contained in each area using the Guinotte and Davies (2012) dataset included in the EFH Phase I Report and EFH Data Portal.

Comprehensive Conservation Proposal Oceana, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Ocean Conservancy July 31, 2013

Observer coral, sponge, and pennatulid bycatch data: We assessed the existing array of permanent trawl closures and our proposed modifications with respect to observer bycatch data on coral, sponge, and sea pen/sea whips. Observed coral, sponge, and pennatulid bycatch from the West Coast Groundfish Observer Program is an important indicator of adverse impacts to EFH as it is a direct indication of the removal of certain biogenic habitat types and an indirect indication of unobserved damage (i.e., corals that are crushed or damaged, but not retained in trawl nets). Therefore, since trawl nets are not intended nor designed to retain these habitat-forming invertebrates, this data should be assessed on a relative, rather than absolute scale.

For our analysis, we used the data that was specific to each of three biogenic habitat types (corals, sponges, and pennatulids), standardized by effort for the “after” period from 2006- 2010. This data was provided as a raster file, with each pixel containing a value for the rate of bycatch, measured in units of kg bycatch per km towed. Confidential data (i.e., for less than 3 vessels) was not provided in this dataset. Since this data set was already standardized to effort, we summed the total values for all pixels contained in each area analyzed to provide a total bycatch value. This bycatch value is best interpreted as a measure of how much of the relative bycatch “hotspots” are contained in each area.

Example: Quinault Canyon’s observer bycatch score is 56.47 for corals and 182.60 for sponges, while the total scores for all waters off Washington are 272.13 for corals and 678.44 for sponges. This means that this closure would encompass 20.8% of high relative coral bycatch areas and 26.9% of high relative sponge bycatch areas off Washington state. Meanwhile, this area represents only 226 (3.4%) of the 6,583 sq. miles of area currently open to trawling off Washington state, demonstrating that this area is a coral and sponge bycatch hotspot within Washington state, and suggesting that closing this area would result in a disproportionate (over 6:1 ratio) reduction in coral and sponge bycatch compared with the amount of area that would be closed.

Groundfish Occurrence and Abundance For each area analyzed, we used the NWFSC data provided in the NMFS Synthesis on the modeled probability of occurrence for 6 selected groundfish species and predicted abundance for 5 selected groundfish species (abundance not provided for Yelloweye rockfish). The occurrence datasets assigned a probability of occurrence for each groundfish species between 0 and 1 to each grid cell. In our analysis, we summed the total probability of occurrence for each groundfish species for all grid cells within each area. This provides a relative index of the overall predicted occurrence of each groundfish species contained in each area.

For each area analyzed, we used the NWFSC data provided in the NMFS Synthesis on the modeled abundance of 5 selected groundfish. The abundance datasets assigned a modeled relative abundance value for each grid cell. In our analysis, we summed the total abundance values for each groundfish species for all grid cells within each area. This provides another relative index of the overall predicted abundance of each groundfish contained in each area.

Comprehensive Conservation Proposal Oceana, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Ocean Conservancy July 31, 2013

Example: For Sablefish, existing trawl closures in the state of Washington encompass 665.9 (25.4%) of a total of 2626.7 summed occurrence probability cells and 4731.3 (22.3%) of a total of 21210.3 summed abundance cells. Quinault Canyon’s summed occurrence probability and abundance scores are 135.74 and 1375.7 respectively. Therefore, the proposed Quinault Canyon closure would add an additional 5.2% of modeled Sablefish Occurrence and an additional 6.4% of modeled sablefish abundance within the EEZ off Washington State.

Fishing Effort For each area analyzed, we calculated the total bottom trawl effort intensity contained within each area using both the Before (2000-2005) and After (2006-2010) datasets provided in the EFH Phase I Report, which use units of km towed per square km over the specified timeframe. We recognize there are limitations to this data, including that they are based on logbook data with only start and end points (rather than actual tow paths), they include large buffers, and they do not display any effort data for areas containing fewer than 3 vessels due to confidentiality constraints. Nonetheless, this is the best available dataset to assess how proposed management changes might affect current and recent bottom trawl effort distribution. We included a displaced revenue calculation for each area, which indicates the percentage of total trawl intensity within the state off which each respective area is located, as an estimate of how much the proposed area would displace trawl effort occurring off each state. We also included an analysis of the non-confidential logbook data we received during the previous EFH process showing individual trawl tracks from 2000-2005. The main purpose is to assess quantitatively the “historical” and “potential” value of the areas that are being proposed for reopening to bottom trawling that were closed by the 2006 EFH regulations.

Lastly, Oceana recently received logbook data from the State of Oregon for the state-managed shrimp trawl effort intensity, both before (2000-2005) and after (2006-2010). We provide the absolute shrimp effort intensity included within each area, and also provide an estimate of displaced shrimp trawl effort based on the “After” intensity relative to the total shrimp trawl effort. Note that this data only includes the Oregon-managed shrimp fleet and does not include shrimp trawl effort for Washington or California-based vessels.

B. Description of Individual Areas (Areas 1-75 and concept area 76)

1. Olympic Footprint Modification (Figures A.1-A.2)

This proposed area is 97.49 square miles and would join the deep-water footprint bottom trawl closure to the west and the U.S EEZ boundary to the North. It ranges in depth from approximately 700 to 1,500 meters and contains rare, unique vulnerable and sensitive biogenic habitat. There are 34 individual records of coral, sponge, and pennatulids (sea pens/sea whips) in this area, including black coral, gorgonian coral, glass sponge, and other types of corals and sponges. 42.31 square miles of this area is considered highly suitable (level “4”) habitat for all coral taxa combined (data from Guinotte and Davis, 2012). The southeast corner of the area between approximately 800 and 1100 meters depth has relatively high coral and sponge bycatch rates compared to overall coral and sponge bycatch rates in this northern region. According to the NMFS Synthesis substrate data there is no known hard or mixed substrate within this site, but

Comprehensive Conservation Proposal Oceana, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Ocean Conservancy July 31, 2013 there is “lower” confidence in this substrate assessment because this area has not been mapped with high resolution sonar. According to the NCOSS models for select groundfish species provided in the NMFS EFH Synthesis Report and the data in the EFH Review Catalog, this area is essential fish habitat for Dover Sole, and it has high values for abundance and occurrence for sablefish and shortspine and longspine thornyheads. The proposed area contains 0.12% of recent (2006-2010) bottom trawl effort (intensity, km/km2) off the coast of Washington. Appendix map A.1 details the area in relation to known biogenic and substrate features, and, using recent bottom trawl intensity, map A.2 shows that the area is largely outside the bottom trawl footprint.

2. Olympic (Figures A.1-A.2)

This proposed area is located within the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary (OCNMS) off northern Washington. Its designation would modify the “Olympic 2” EFH Conservation Area, which is closed to non-Tribal bottom trawling. This highly important ecological area contains many sensitive and vulnerable biogenic habitat features and has been the focus of substantial research by NOAA since the PFMC and NMFS designated the Olympic 2 area in 2005/ 2006.

Within this 202.44 square mile proposed area, 14.65 square miles is “hard” substrate and 130.92 is “mixed” hard and soft substrate. There is a “high” level of confidence in the seafloor habitat data for this region. There are also significant known concentrations of sensitive biogenic habitats in the Olympic 2 area and the area we propose for new designation. Twenty-nine percent of known coral observations—7,639 observations in total—in the northern shelf and upper slope regions (physiographic strata) between Cape Mendocino, CA and Cape Flattery, WA are in this proposed Olympic expansion area.

Prior to NOAA research dives in 2004 and 2006 to document hard substrate and associated communities, the available information about habitat-forming corals in the sanctuary was extremely limited; it was based on observations from NMFS trawl surveys and occasional observations by academic institutions. At that time, the only species of zoantharian coral that had been documented in sanctuary waters was a black coral (Bathypathes sp.) (Etnoyer and Morgan 2003; Etnoyer and Morgan 2005).

Since the PFMC voted to establish the Olympic 2 EFH Conservation Area in 2005, scientists have mapped much of the seafloor habitat in the area we propose for designation and have conducted multiple research expeditions to survey the biological communities. NOAA scientists led a research cruise from May 22 to June 4, 2006 on which they conducted a series of dives in this area with the goal of documenting deep coral and sponge communities (Brancato et al. 2007). The survey locations included sites inside the Olympic 2 EFH conservation area and inside this proposed area. Several species of corals and sponges, including gorgonians, stony corals, and reef building sponges, were documented at 14 of the 15 survey sites. The researchers also documented dead gorgonians, lost fishing gear, and coral rubble, providing evidence of the risk of disturbance to coral health (Brancato et al. 2007).

Comprehensive Conservation Proposal Oceana, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Ocean Conservancy July 31, 2013

NOAA scientists conducted ROV surveys in the area we propose for designation in 2010. On five transects covering 7,374 square meters, those surveys documented a total of 241 individual corals (Bowlby et al. 2011). The scientists found an average density of 33 corals per 1000/m². The gorgonian coral Swiftia beringi dominated the coral observations, accounting for 94% of the total density. Researchers documented 598 sponges per 1000/m² in the survey area. Additional research was conducted in this area in 2011 (OCNMS 2012), and coral and sponge locations in the proposed area were included in the NOAA Deep Sea Coral and Sponge Database, the NMFS EFH Synthesis data, and in Oceana’s analysis (Appendix C).

The ROV surveys observed fish species including rosethorn, yellowtail, yelloweye, canary, tiger, and Puget Sound rockfishes, lingcod, spotted ratfish, Pacific halibut, kelp greenling, and others (Bowlby et al. 2011). According the NCOSS and NWFSC species models provided in the EFH Review Catalog—which include only a representative groundfish species, not all groundfish species—the proposed area is EFH for darkblotched rockfish, greenstriped rockfish, longspine thorneyhead, petrale sole, sablefish, yelloweye rockfish, dover sole, lingcod, Pacific Ocean Perch, and shortspine thorneyhead. Bowlby et al. (2011) noted possible gravid female rockfish during the ROV surveys, which indicates that the area is likely important for breeding and spawning rockfishes.

Data on physical oceanographic characteristics from these ROV surveys indicate that the mean temperature and salinity varies little between sites, with the shallower sites being slightly warmer and with slightly higher dissolved oxygen levels than the deeper sites. In the 2006 survey, temperature ranged from 6.5 to 7.9 C, with shallower sites (89-131m depth) about one-half of one degree warmer than deeper water sites. Salinity ranged from 32.0 to 34.0 psu, except at survey sites 30 and 40, at which the mean salinity was low, measuring 30.1 and 26.7 psu, respectively (Brancato et al 2007). Mean Dissolved Oxygen values also varied little between the dive sites, ranging from 2.2 to 4.6 mg/L (all sites included) and from 2.2 to 3.4 mg/L with the two shallowest sites excluded (Brancato et al 2007).

The boundaries of the proposed area were designed specifically to include the known mixed and hard physical and biogenic substrates while avoiding areas important to the bottom trawl fishery. Our analysis of the trawl intensity data in this area (see map A.2) shows that only 0.22% of the bottom trawl intensity (km/km2) from 2006-2010 off the coast of Washington occurred within this proposed area.

3. Quinault Canyon (Figures A.3-A.5)

The Quinault Canyon is a major submarine canyon off the coast of Washington. Submarine canyons are known to support enhanced productivity due to topographically induced upwelling along their axes (Freeland and Denman 1982). As a result of the upwelling, canyons have high concentrations of macrobenthos (Vetter and Dayton 1998), micronekton (Cartes et al. 1994), demersal fishes, and cetaceans relative to surrounding areas on the slope and shelf. Submarine canyons provide habitat for larger sized rockfish, which seem to prefer structures of high relief such as boulders, vertical walls, and ridges. The cover and protection offered by submarine

Comprehensive Conservation Proposal Oceana, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Ocean Conservancy July 31, 2013 canyons allow pockets of rockfish populations to flourish. In addition, the upwelling zones around canyons support high abundances of filter feeding invertebrates, such as corals, sponges, tunicates, and bryozoans, which contribute to the structural complexity of the seafloor.

This proposed area would be a new Essential Fish Habitat Conservation Area closed to non- Tribal bottom trawling. The site ranges from 300 to approximately 1,700 meters in depth and includes 221.61 square miles. There is no known hard or mixed substrate, but the area has not been surveyed with detailed sonar mapping and the confidence levels for most of the substrate data available are “low.” The data from the NOAA Deep Sea Coral Database provided on the EFH Review Catalog shows that there are 14 records of coral, sponge, and pennatulid observations in the proposed area, including glass sponge and black coral, sampled in NOAA trawl surveys.

Importantly, there are high levels of observed coral and sponge bycatch in this proposed site (see map A.4) relative to other areas off the coast of Washington. The observations indicate that there are continued adverse impacts to sensitive and vulnerable habitat features and that this area supports complex biogenic habitat features despite low levels of scientific sampling. Quinault Canyon’s observer bycatch score is 56.47 for corals and 182.60 for sponges, while the total scores for all waters off Washington are 272.13 for corals and 678.44 for sponges. Thus, this proposed closure would encompass 20.8% of high relative bycatch coral bycatch areas and 26.9% of high relative sponge bycatch areas off Washington State. Meanwhile, this area represents only 226 (3.4%) of the 6,583 square miles currently open to trawling off Washington State. The high level of observed bycatch in this small area evidences a coral and sponge bycatch hotspot within Washington state. Closing this area would result in a disproportionate (over 6:1 ratio) reduction in coral and sponge bycatch compared to the amount of area that would be closed.

4. Copalis Inner Shelf (Figures A.3-A.5)

The Copalis Inner Shelf area proposed for designation is northwest of Grays Harbor adjacent to Washington State waters. It extends roughly 16 miles offshore to 70 to 80 meters depth. The total area proposed for designation encompasses 415 square miles and includes predominately soft bottom habitat, with 5.74 miles squared of hard substrate. This site is appropriate for fixed gear fishing, such as the Dungeness crab fishery that is important in the area, and currently includes only limited bottom trawling. According to the NWFSC species models, the area is very important to petrale sole in terms of occurrence and abundance (see Appendix C, Tables C). The NWFSC species models show lower levels of occurrence and abundance for darkblotched rockfish, greenstriped rockfish, sablefish, and yelloweye. Protection of this area would add significantly to the protection of soft sediment shelf habitat in the northern shelf region. The area includes only 0.02% of recent bottom trawl effort and zero percent of Oregon shrimp trawl effort. Designation and protection of this area may have a positive benefit for existing fixed gear fisheries by preventing gear conflicts, bycatch, and habitat modification.

5. Grays Canyon (Figures A.3-A.5)

Comprehensive Conservation Proposal Oceana, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Ocean Conservancy July 31, 2013

This proposed designation would modify the boundaries of the Grays Canyon EFH Closed Area to encompass and protect identified coral and sponge habitat as well as surrounding areas upon which dives have not yet been conducted, but where there is coral and sponge bycatch data from NOAA trawl surveys, hard substrate, and complex seafloor topography demonstrated by bathymetric data.

Recent research, including ROV surveys, has uncovered glass sponge reefs (Class Hexactinellida) in the vicinity of Grays Canyon (Johnson 2006, Bjorklund et al. 2008). Glass sponges are remarkable benthic suspension feeders. Each of these single-celled animals can produce a skeleton made of nearly pure silica that can reach a meter or more in height (Leys et al., 2004; Yahel et al., 2005; Conway et al., 1991, 2004). Although individual glass sponges can be found at depths of 500 to 3000 meters, they are found in Glass sponge (H. calyx) on glacial erratic relatively shallow waters in only a few areas of the world - Antarctica, New Zealand, a few caves in the Mediterranean, and in the Pacific Northwest (Johnson 2006).

Comprehensive Conservation Proposal Oceana, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Ocean Conservancy July 31, 2013

Glass sponges in the Grays Canyon Proposal Area

Until very recently, glass sponge reefs in the northwest Pacific were known to occur only off British Columbia (e.g. Conway et al., 1991; 2001; 2004; 2005, Cook 2005). The sponge reefs there are among the largest known on Earth, covering thousands of kilometers along the coastline in the Hecate Strait and Strait of Georgia (Whitney et al., 2005; Leys et al., 2004; Yahel et al., 2005). The fact that environmental conditions in the Strait of Georgia and the continental margins of Washington and Oregon are nearly identical, coupled with sidescan sonar data and NMFS trawl bycatch records suggested the presence of glass sponge reefs in the Grays Canyon area (Johnson 2006). In 2008, scientists from Washington Sea Grant and the University of Washington formally documented the existence of these ancient reefs off the U.S. West Coast (Bjorklund et al. 2008). The research also recorded the existence of methane seeps in the vicinity of the reefs and swarms of krill.

There are three known reef building glass sponge species: Aphrocallistes vastus (vase sponge), Heterochone calyx, and Farrea occa (Cook, 2005). Data from the 2008 cruise and NMFS trawl surveys indicate the presence of A. vastus and H. calyx in the vicinity of Grays Canyon, and F. occa was recorded during the OCNMS dives further north. Bycatch records in the area also show the presence of many species of non-reef building sponges, such as the cloud sponge Rhabdocalyptus sp., the hermit sponge Suberites sp., the ball sponge Tethya sp., the tree sponge Mycale loveni, the spiny vase sponge Leucandra heathi, the fiberoptic sponge Hylonema sp., and the barrel sponge Halichondria panice. In addition, many bycatch records only identify to the level of “glass sponge” or even simply “sponge” (NOAA Deep Sea Coral and Sponge Database available in the EFH Review Catalog).

Comprehensive Conservation Proposal Oceana, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Ocean Conservancy July 31, 2013

The Grays Canyon area proposed for expanded protection has very similar geological, physical oceanographic, and chemical characteristics to the sponge reef areas in British Columbia. The seafloor morphology consists of elevated banks or pre-existing ridges rising above the near-bottom transport of muddy sediment at the continental margin between 150- 200m to a maximum depth of Glass sponge and rockfish, 160 meters in the Grays Canyon roughly 360m. The sediment is Proposal Area. coarse/immobile, stable against transport by near-bottom currents for hundreds to thousands of years, such as glacial till/diamictite; there is also a small amount of continuous clay sedimentation. Within the 63.28 square miles of the proposed area, there is 0.5 square miles of hard substrate. Bottom currents in the area range from 10 to 25 cm/second. Sediment content were measures at < 7 mg/L and >35% transmissivity (Johnson 2006). Chemical characteristics of the area include a minimum of 43 to 70 μmol/liter of dissolved silica and a minimum of 62 to 152 μmol/liter DO (Johnson 2006).

According to the NWFSC models of select representative groundfish species, this area is EFH for darkblotched, greenstriped, and yelloweye rockfish, longspine thornyhead, sablefish, and petrale sole. See Appendix C (Table C) for occurrence and abundance probabilities.

In designing this proposed area, we worked to avoid bottom trawl and shrimp trawl areas. The proposed area includes 0.09% of recent bottom trawl effort (km/km2) off the Washington coast and only 0.0006% of recent (2007-2011) Oregon shrimp trawl effort based on information provided to us by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (see figure B.1). Originally, we planned to propose a larger area extending further onto the shelf where there appear to be no groundfish bottom trawling. After reviewing the Oregon shrimp trawl data, however, it became clear that west of the proposed site is important to the shrimp trawl fleet, and we modified this proposed site to avoid shrimp trawl areas.

6. Astoria Footprint Modification (Figures A.6-A.7)

This area proposed to be closed to bottom trawling extends across deep regions of the Astoria and Willapa submarine canyons from about 800 to 1600 meters depth. It would join the existing deep-water footprint trawl closure, “Biogenic 3,” and the Astoria Canyon EFH Conservation Area. The area is designed to be outside of the current trawl footprint (see figure A.7). It is 379 square miles and includes predominately soft and predicted rock substrate. There are 97 total recorded coral, sponge, and pennatulid observations, and 73.55 square miles of the proposed area

Comprehensive Conservation Proposal Oceana, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Ocean Conservancy July 31, 2013 has a “high” predicted habitat suitability score for all coral taxa combined (Guinotte and Davies 2012). According to the NMFS NWFSC species models, the area is high value habitat for sablefish and longspine thorneyhead, EFH for darkblotched, greenstriped, and yelloweye rockfish, and at the deeper edges of petrale sole habitat. Given the importance of submarine canyons, high probability of coral concentrations, and almost no trawl effort, protecting this area would provide high value EFH conservation with very limited, if any, economic impacts to the fishing industry.

7. Willapa Canyonhead (Figures A.6-A.7)

The Willapa Canyonhead area, which we propose to be closed to bottom trawling, is located west of Willapa Bay, Washington at the head of the Willapa submarine canyon. It is 43.67 square miles and includes 5.6 square miles of hard substrate; the remainder is considered soft substrate. It crosses the shelf and upper slope area between approximately 130 and 300 meters depth. The area is mostly within the current year-round bottom trawl Rockfish Conservation Area (RCA). It was selected due to the submarine canyon and adjacent hard substrate features. According to the NWFSC species models, the area is relatively high value habitat for darkblotched rockfish, greenstriped rockfish, and sablefish. The rocky reef in the area is likely important for yelloweye rockfish. Given that it is largely within the current RCA, there is likely to be displacement of fishing effort if this area were designated an EFH conservation area.

8. Astoria Canyonhead (Figures A.6-A.7)

Astoria Canyonhead, proposed to be closed to bottom trawling, is located about 13 miles west of the mouth of the Columbia River and ranges in depth from approximately 180 to 500 meters. The area is 18.2 square miles and is considered soft substrate. There are six coral records from NOAA trawl surveys, including black and gorgonian coral, and 90% of the area has a “high” predicted habitat suitability score for all coral taxa combined (Guinotte and Davies 2012). The area is designed to be mostly within the current year-round trawl RCA. It was selected from the rest of the RCA due to the ecological importance of submarine canyons, including high value coral habitat. The NWFSC species models show that the area is particularly high value darkblotched rockfish and sablefish habitat (Appendix C, Table C). While the data shows some trawl effort in this area (0.28% of recent groundfish trawl effort off Oregon), we expect there is actually even less than that given its overlap with the RCA. See figures A.6-A.7 for the proposed area location, location of biogenic habitat features, hard and mixed substrates, and trawl intensity.

9. South Nehalem Reef (Figures A.8-A.9)

The South Nehalem Reef, northwest of Tillamook, OR is a new rocky reef feature not included in the substrate data available to the PFMC and NMFS in 2005. The proposed area is 104.2 square miles and includes 27.8 square miles of hard substrate and 3.6 square miles of mixed substrate. It ranges in depth from approximately 130 to 200 meters. There are 26 coral, sponge, and pennatulid observations in the proposed area, including black coral. From the NWFSC species models it appears to be an important area for darkblotched, greenstriped, and yelloweye

Comprehensive Conservation Proposal Oceana, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Ocean Conservancy July 31, 2013 rockfish. There appears to very little bottom trawling (0.02% of effort off Oregon) in the area (see figure A.9). We were originally going to propose joining this area with the Nehalem Reef EFH Conservation area to the north. After considering Oregon shrimp trawl effort data provided by ODFW, however, we modified the proposal to avoid important shrimp trawl areas to the north and east of the reef (Figure B.1). Our analysis shows that the proposed area includes only 0.63% of Oregon pink shrimp trawl effort.

10. Cascadia Shelf Hotspot (Figures A.10-A.12)

The Cascadia Shelf Hotspot is located roughly 18 miles west of Lincoln City, OR and spans depths from approximately 200 to 420 meters. The proposed area is 152 square miles, and it includes soft substrate. The area in the Hotspot between roughly 200 and 300 meters is within the groundfish trawl RCA. The area west of that, however, is open to bottom trawling. The area was identified primarily based on the relatively high levels of sponge bycatch documented by the West Coast Groundfish Observer Program since 2006. Of all the areas proposed for designation, this area has the highest sponge bycatch rate score—2,219. This sponge bycatch rate score is 8.7% of the total sponge bycatch rate for all upper slope habitats off the West Coast EEZ. The area includes only 0.45% of the total 33,665 square miles of upper slope habitat open to bottom trawling. Closing this site would result in a disproportionate reduction in sponge bycatch compared to the amount of area closed (over a 1:19 ratio). We calculate that 0.53% of bottom trawl effort (intensity km/km2) off Oregon occurred within this site between 2006 and 2010.

11. Siletz Hotspot (Figures A.10-A.12)

The Siletz Hotspot, which we propose to be closed to bottom trawling, is located approximately 35 miles west of Newport and Lincoln City, OR and ranges in depth from roughly 300 to greater than 800 meters. It is 59 square miles and includes 16.74 square miles of mixed substrate and 0.01 square miles of hard substrate. There are 69 coral, sponge, and pennatulid observations in this proposed site, including black coral, gorgonian coral, and sponge. Like the proposed Cascadia Shelf Hotspot, we defined the boundaries of this site primarily in response to the high levels of coral and sponge bycatch in the area while trying to avoid areas of relatively high trawl intensity immediately adjacent to the proposed site. This site has a coral bycatch rate score of 7.64 and a sponge bycatch rate score of 1,094. The area includes 4.3% of the total sponge bycatch rate and 0.62% of the total coral bycatch rate for all upper slope habitat open to trawling off the U.S West Coast. The site includes only 0.18% of the total upper slope habitat open to bottom trawling off the West Coast, suggesting that closing it would disproportionately reduce coral and sponge bycatch compared to the amount of area closed (over a 1:23 ratio for sponge bycatch). In our analysis of the bottom trawl effort (intensity km/km2), we calculate that 0.68% of trawl effort off Oregon occurred in this proposed site between 2006 and 2010. According to the NMFS SWFSC species models, this area appears especially important to darkblotched rockfish, longspine thornyhead, and sablefish.

12. Hydrate Ridge/Central Oregon Footprint Modification (Figures A.13-A.14)

Comprehensive Conservation Proposal Oceana, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Ocean Conservancy July 31, 2013

Hydrate Ridge is 51 miles west of Newport, OR. This deepwater ridge runs from northeast to southwest and rises from about 1,000 meters on a slope basin on the east, and from a slope basin reaching 2,100 meters on the west side. It reaches a pinnacle at about 600 meters depth. The ridge is in the northern portion of this proposed site, which borders the seaward side of the 700 fathom bottom trawl closure. This area proposed to be closed to bottom trawling would extend the deepwater closure further west to include Hydrate Ridge and adjacent areas that are open to bottom trawling but beyond the trawl footprint. The total area of the proposed site is 196.5 square miles and includes 6.56 square miles of hard substrate that has been mapped in the hydrate ridge area. There is approximately 12 square miles of predicted rock, and the rest is presumed soft substrate.

Several studies since about 1999 have documented the gas hydrate and cold seep carbonates in this region and have mapped the area with sidescan sonar (e.g. Johnson et al. 2003). Researchers also documented a number of soft corals and Paragorgia “bubble gum” coral in this area. There are 343 coral observations in the proposed site, including many soft coral and gorgonian corals identified at hydrate ridge, as well as black corals, gorgonian coral, and other corals found in various trawl surveys. The area includes 20.89 mi2 predicted ‘high’ value habitat for all coral taxa combined (Guinotte and Davies 2012). The NWFSC species models rank this area highly for occurrence and abundance for both longspine thornyhead and sablefish. See figures A.13 to A.14 for the proposed area location, location of biogenic habitat features, and substrate and trawl intensity.

13. North Daisy Bank (Figures A.13-A.14)

This proposed area would modify the existing Daisy Bank EFH Conservation Area by extending the area closed to bottom trawling northward to include newly identified mixed (hard and soft) substrate immediately adjacent to the existing conservation area. Daisy Bank rises to about 130 meters at its highest point and descends to roughly 390 meters at the northern boundary of the proposed area. The proposed expansion is 18.59 square miles and includes 7.22 square miles of mixed substrate that was not identified in 2005. While the Daisy Bank EFH area was previously identified as “hard” rock substrate, the new seafloor habitat classification defines the entire area as “mixed,” including both hard rocky reef and soft sediments. There are seven sponge records in the proposed expansion area, mostly glass sponge found in NOAA trawl surveys. According to the SWFSC species models, all modeled groundfish (darkblotched, greenstriped, and yelloweye rockfish, longspine thornyhead, petrale sole, and sablefish) are found in the area at varying probability levels of abundance and occurrence; sablefish have the highest probability of abundance. The proposed area includes only 0.04% of recent (2006-2010) groundfish bottom trawl effort off Oregon.

14. North Stonewall Bank (Figures A.13-A.14)

The North Stonewall Bank proposal area would modify the existing Stonewall Bank EFH Conservation Area by extending the current boundary north and west from approximately 70 meters depth to 140 meters. The expansion would include a major extension of Stonewall Bank that is currently outside of the EFH Conservation Area and is shown by current substrate data.

Comprehensive Conservation Proposal Oceana, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Ocean Conservancy July 31, 2013

The proposed area would add 57.85 square miles of area to the current conservation area, including 24.79 square miles of rocky reef habitat. There are thirteen total coral, sponge, and pennatulid observations in this proposed site that are included in the Deep Sea Coral Technology Program coral and sponge database (available on the EFH Review Catalog), including gorgonian corals and glass sponge. According to the SWFSC species models, all modeled groundfish (darkblotched, greenstriped, and yelloweye rockfish, longspine thornyhead, petrale sole, and sablefish) are found there at varying probability levels of abundance and occurrence; greenstriped rockfish and petrale sole have the highest probability of abundance.

We originally intended to propose a larger modification to the Stonewall Bank EFH Conservation Area to include more of the reef habitat and, potentially, to join the area with Daisy Bank to the west and Heceta Bank to the southwest. After reviewing bottom trawl and Oregon pink trawl shrimp effort, however, we made substantial modifications to avoid areas important to these two trawl fisheries. The proposed area as drafted includes only 0.03% of the groundfish bottom trawl fishing intensity off Oregon (2007-2010) and only .001% of Oregon pink shrimp trawl effort (2007-2011).

15. Heceta Bank West (Figures A.13-A.14)

The Heceta Bank West site would modify the existing Heceta Bank EFH Conservation Area, which is currently closed to bottom trawling, by expanding the westward boundary. The expansion would take the deepest point from roughly 130 meters to 430 meters. This proposed area is 68.08 square miles, and it would add 9.97 square miles of rocky reef habitat as well as 21.94 square miles of mixed seafloor substrate to the EFH Conservation Area. The proposed area includes 40 coral, sponge, and pennatulid observations, including black corals, gorgonian corals, and glass sponges. Directly in the center of the proposed expansion, at the edge of the current conservation area, there is a relatively high sponge bycatch area (bycatch rate score of 120.76). According to the SWFSC species models, all modeled groundfish (darkblotched, greenstriped, and yelloweye rockfish, longspine thornyhead, petrale sole, and sablefish) are found there at varying probability levels of abundance and occurrence; greenstriped rockfish and sabelfish have the highest probability of abundance and occurrence.

Much of this area is within the current year-round groundfish trawl RCA. Other than a gap between one and two miles wide between the conservation and the shoreward boundary of the RCA, this area is currently closed to bottom trawling. It is difficult to tell whether or not trawling is in fact occurring in this gap area, but according our analysis of the trawl intensity data (2006-2010), the proposed area would include 0.41% of the bottom trawl effort off Oregon.

16. Heceta Bank (Figures A.13-A.14)

This proposed area would modify the existing Heceta Bank EFH Conservation Area to include an extensive and contiguous rocky reef complex to the east and northeast. The boundary modification would add 328.4 square miles, including 153 square miles of hard rocky reef substrate and 16.67 square miles of mixed substrate. Heceta Bank, including this proposed boundary modification, is the largest contiguous rocky reef complex north of Cape Mendocino,

Comprehensive Conservation Proposal Oceana, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Ocean Conservancy July 31, 2013

CA. This area is highly important breeding, feeding, and nursery habitat for a diversity of rockfish species. It also is a key feeding ground for pelagic birds and marine mammals.

The shallowest point in the proposed area is in the NE corner at 70 meters depth, and the reef reaches about 290 meters at its deepest point along the NW arm of the proposed site. The proposed area includes 40 records of coral, sponge, and pennatulid observations including gorgonian corals, black coral, and glass sponge. According to the SWFSC species models, all modeled groundfish (darkblotched, greenstriped, and yelloweye rockfish, longspine thornyhead, petrale sole, and sablefish) are found in this proposed area at varying probability levels of abundance and occurrence; greenstriped rockfish, petrale sole, and sabelfish have the highest probability of abundance and occurrence. Of all proposed sites in the northern strata (North of Cape Mendocino), this area has the highest probability of occurrence for overfished yelloweye rockfish. In our analysis of the recent trawl effort intensity, the proposed area includes only 0.10% of groundfish bottom trawl effort off Oregon.

17. Cape Arago Reef (Figure A.15-A.16)

The proposed Cape Arago Reef area includes a significant nearshore, shelf reef complex off the southern Oregon coast. The reef, located southwest of Cape Arago, OR (near Coos Bay) and west of Bandon, Oregon, extends from shore to roughly 12 miles off the coast and to a depth of approximately 150 meters. This area is proposed to be closed to bottom trawling, and it only includes the reef habitat west of the Oregon Territorial Sea boundary.

Information about the extent of the reef, the physical substrate, and the biological communities in this area has changed significantly since 2005 with new substrate data and ROV habitat surveys. Of the proposed 127.36 square miles, 11.18 square miles is hard rocky substrate, and 89.33 square miles is mixed (hard and soft) substrate. The mixed substrate includes a diversity of hard and soft substrates such as large boulders, cobble, and gravel mixed with silt and mud.

In June 2011, Oceana conducted eight dives in this area using high definition cameras mounted on an ROV. We also surveyed the reef in the adjacent state waters. In the proposed Cape Arago area, we documented hundreds of widow rockfish, greenstriped rockfish, quillback rockfish, blue rockfish, tiger rockfish, canary rockfish, rosy rockfish, yelloweye rockfish, olive/yellowtail rockfish, rex sole, kelp greenling, and lingcod (Enticknap et al. 2013, submitted to the PFMC in April 2013). This area appears to be an important habitat for overfished yelloweye and canary rockfish. We documented corals and sponges at seven of the eight dives in the proposed area, including gorgonian corals, soft corals, and stony corals. We also documented foliose, mound, and branching sponges. Thirty-six percent of the frames analyzed had corals, and 70% had sponge (627 frames analyzed selected at 30-sec intervals). Of all the areas we observed, the offshore Cape Arago area proposed here had the highest fish diversity and highest percentage of coral and sponge observations (compared to other areas surveyed like Coquille Bank, inshore Cape Arago and Orfrod Reef).

Comprehensive Conservation Proposal Oceana, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Ocean Conservancy July 31, 2013

Our analysis of trawl effort data (2006-2010) shows that zero percent of recent trawl effort occurs in this proposed site. While there has not been any recent trawling in here, we note some areas of low relief and mixed soft habitat that may be susceptible to trawling.

Gorgonian corals, sponge and other invertebrates in proposed Cape Arago Reef area.

Widow rockfish in proposed Cape Arago Reef area

Comprehensive Conservation Proposal Oceana, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Ocean Conservancy July 31, 2013

Canary rockfish and anemone in the proposed Cape Arago Reef Area

18. Rogue Canyonhead (Figures A.17-A.19)

This proposed EFH Conservation Area, which we propose to be closed to bottom trawling, is located 13 miles west of Gold Beach, OR. The total area is 26.43 square miles and includes 10.44 square miles of hard rock substrate and 2.16 square miles of predicted rock. The reef structure is long narrow reef, approximately 11 miles long and running north to south between about 110 and 130 meters deep. The reef drops into the canyonhead in the north, where the proposed site reaches 400 meters deep. The site includes only two sponge observations, but the canyonhead contains 3.44 square miles of predicted to have high habitat suitability for all coral taxa combined (Guinotte and Davies 2012). According to the SWFSC species models, all modeled groundfish (darkblotched, greenstriped, and yelloweye rockfish, longspine thornyhead, petrale sole, and sablefish) are found there at varying probability levels of abundance and occurrence; sablefish and greenstriped rockfish have the highest probability of abundance. The proposed conservation area includes the part of the year-round groundfish trawl RCA that overlaps with the canyonhead and the reef habitat that extends onto the shelf, but it aviods any areas important to the groundfish trawl fishery or the Oregon shrimp trawl fishery. The boundaries were adjusted after conversations with fishermen and data from ODFW showed that some of the area we originally sought to include is important to the Oregon shrimp trawl fishery. The proposed area includes only 0.01% of recent trawl effort off Oregon and almost zero shrimp trawl effort.

19. South Oregon Footprint Modification (Figures A.17-A.19)

The proposed area would extend the 700 fathom deepwater trawl footprint closure eastward to include areas known to have gorgonian corals and black corals as well as an area that is predicted to have “high” probability for all coral taxa combined. This area ranges in depth from about 1000 to 1380 meters and includes 128.64 square miles total, 5.96 square miles of which are

Comprehensive Conservation Proposal Oceana, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Ocean Conservancy July 31, 2013 predicted rock, and 12.77 square miles of which are high predicted habitat suitability for all coral taxa combined (Guinotte and Davies 2012). There are 37 coral, sponge, and pennatulid observations in the area, and it is outside the current trawl footprint, including only 0.03% of recent bottom trawl effort off Oregon. According both the NWFSC and NCCOS species models, the proposed area has a high probability of both abundance and occurrence of longspine thorneyhead and sablefish (NMFS 2013).

20. Crescent City Deepwater Hotspot (Figures A.17-A.19)

This proposed bottom trawl closure is based primarily on the high relative coral bycatch in the area. The summed standardized coral bycatch score for this area is 352.56, accounting for 75.1% of the coral bycatch score in California and 24.9% of the coral bycatch score coastwide. The majority of the current impacts to corals would be addressed by protecting this area. This area encompasses 51.6 square miles and includes 0.28% of recent bottom trawl intensity in California Protection would result in a disproportionately great reduction in current impacts to coral as compared with the area closed and effort displaced.

The seafloor topography in this region indicates that the area includes two significant banks and ridges, and there are numerous observations of biogenic habitats, including black corals, gorgonian corals, and glass sponges. There is no hard substrate indicated by the EFH data, but the quality of substrate data is low in this area, and similar habitats just to north in Oregon have predicted hard substrate. We consulted with NOAA’s Deep Sea Coral Research and Technology Program on this proposed site and received feedback confirming that this area has been identified to have significant corals and that there has been high black and gorgonian coral bycatch in the NMFS trawl surveys. The proposed area was subject to bottom trawling between 2006 and 2010 (PFMC 2012).

21. Pt. St. George Reef (Figures A.17-A.19)

Pt. St. George Reef would be a new EFH Conservation Area that we propose be closed to trawling. The area is adjacent to the Pt. St. George Reef State Marine Protected Area, and it includes the northwestern-most edge of the rocky reef feature that has been mapped in federal waters. This area encompasses a section of the Trawl RCA that has high predicted coral habitat and would be the only section of RCA included as an EFH Conservation Area for the 70-mile stretch between the proposed EFH Conservation areas of Rogue Canyon to the north and Reading Rock to the south. Based on NWFSC models, this area includes high occurrence and abundance of darkblotched rockfish, greenstriped rockfish, Petrale sole, and sablefish. In addition, NCCOS models show very high predicted abundance and occurrence of lingcod. The Pt. St. George Reef itself is an impressive rocky structure that extends over 10 miles continuously from the coastline, and this EFH Conservation Area would establish continuous protection out to 275 meters (150 fathoms).

22. Eureka Footprint Modification (Figures A.20-A.21)

Comprehensive Conservation Proposal Oceana, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Ocean Conservancy July 31, 2013

The Eureka Footprint modification could either be an addition to the current 700-fathom footprint closure or a new EFH Conservation Area. This area is almost exclusively deeper than 600 fathoms, and it contains a major submarine canyon with waters deeper than 700 fathoms. The area has very low to no recent trawl effort (0.08% of California trawl effort), and there are very few trawl tracks from 2000-2005 logbook data. The portion of the canyon that would be protected is in the deeper convergence of a large complex of offshore canyons. The canyonheads are also proposed (proposed Reading Rocks Canyonheads EFH Conservation Area, #23). The area includes multiple records of glass sponges and pennatulids from trawl surveys. It has high modeled occurrence and abundance of longspine thornyhead. As most other areas in this depth range are heavily trawled in the region, this area represents an excellent opportunity for deepwater protections off Northern California with little disruption to bottom trawl effort.

23. Reading Rocks Canyonheads (Figures A.20-A.21)

The Reading Rocks Canyonheads is a new proposed EFH Conservation Area focused primarily on a section of Trawl RCA containing a complex of offshore canyonheads. These canyonheads contain high predicted coral habitat near the 275 meter (150 fathom) depth range. The area is offshore from the Reading Rocks State Marine Reserve. It contains a substantial number of records of gorgonian corals, pennatulids, other corals, and sponges

24. Samoa Deepwater (Figures A.20-A.21)

Samoa Deepwater is a new proposed EFH Conservation Area totaling 101 square miles. This area encompasses some of the few mapped significant rocky reefs in the region and includes a range of depths from 200-600 fathoms. It includes two areas surveyed by the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute; those surveys resulted in 2071 individual coral observations. This area encompasses 1.2% of the recent trawl effort off California.

25. Samoa Reef (Figures A.20-A.21)

Samoa Reef is a new proposed EFH Conservation Area totaling 16.3 square miles. The area is offshore from the Samoa State Marine Conservation Area, and it includes rocky and mixed habitat within the current trawl RCA. The mixed and hard substrate extends deeper beyond the boundaries of this area, but we do not propose designation of those substrate due to overlap with core trawl areas. The reefs have numerous observations of biogenic habitats, including black corals, gorgonians and sponges. Very little of the RCA in this region contains mapped hard substrate, and this proposed area would include the most significant rocky feature identified at this depth range in the region. This area encompasses 0.43% of recent trawl effort off California and would displace some tows, though continuous tows would still be possible deeper than 200 fathoms.

26. North Eel River Canyon (Figures A.22-A.24)

North Eel River Canyon is a proposed expansion of the existing Eel River Canyon EFH Conservation Area totaling 22.9 square miles. This area was identified primarily to encompass a

Comprehensive Conservation Proposal Oceana, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Ocean Conservancy July 31, 2013 major sponge bycatch hotspot. This area’s observer bycatch score for sponges is 114.58, representing 7.7% of the total sponge bycatch score off California. The bycatch hotspot appears to be located on a series of sequential banks and ridges on the northern edge of Eel River Canyon where there are also multiple records of glass sponges and other sponge types from trawl surveys. The proposal expands the current Conservation Area to encompass the shallower parts of the northern canyon edge and the canyonhead that is currently unprotected. This area combined with the Southern expansion proposed below would provide much more comprehensive protection of a suite of diverse habitat types in this key submarine canyon. It also would add a portion of the trawl RCA into an EFH Conservation Area. The western section of this area appears to be heavily trawled. However, that area also contains the sponge bycatch hotspot, and we believe this closure is warranted despite the trawl effort that would be displaced. We consulted with NOAA’s Deep Sea Coral Research and Technology Program on this proposed site and received feedback confirming this area is identified as having significant bycatch of corals and sponges. The proposed area was subject to bottom trawling between 2006 and 2010 (PFMC 2012).

27. South Eel River Canyon (Figures A.22-A.24)

South Eel River Canyon is a proposed expansion of the existing Eel River Canyon EFH Conservation Area that totals 18.2 square miles. It is primarily in an area with very low to no trawling, and its designation would add the southern canyon edge, much of which is part of the current trawl RCA. The entire proposed closed area encompasses only 0.03% of California’s total trawl intensity. This area contains multiple sponge occurrence records, including glass sponges. It would add significant steep canyon, canyon edge, and canyonhead habitat to the protected area. This area contains high modeled occurrence and abundance of longspine thornyhead.

28. Blunts Reef (Figures A.22-A.24)

Blunts Reef is a proposed 9.3 square mile expansion of the current Blunts Reef EFH Conservation Area that adds the remaining hard substrate mapped at this reef. The added area and the Mendocino Ridge Expansion (#29) contain the highest predicted habitat for yelloweye rockfish in the Northern California region. Six square miles of this area is high predicted coral habitat and this area includes 2.4 square miles of hard substrate currently open to trawling. This area is one of the few in this proposal that include high occurrence and abundance of all six groundfish species in the NWFSC models. The expansion would adjoin Blunts Reef to the Mendocino Ridge closure, adding the northern portion of a major submarine canyon as well as the trawl RCA. Very little to no trawling is indicated throughout the entire proposed closed area; it encompasses 0.01% of California’s recent total trawl intensity.

29. Mendocino Ridge Expansion (Figures A.22-A.24)

Mendocino Ridge Expansion is a proposed 77.5 square mile expansion of the Mendocino Ridge EFH Conservation Area. This is unique area of hard bottom of Mendocino Ridge, including 63.4 square miles of hard substrate not currently within EFH Conservation Area, and high habitat

Comprehensive Conservation Proposal Oceana, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Ocean Conservancy July 31, 2013 suitability for corals and multiple observations of sponges. Two major submarine canyons join some of the shallowest areas of this major ridge. Mendocino Ridge is a biogeographic transition zone. Based on NWFSC models, this area and Blunts Reef contains some of the highest predicted habitat for yelloweye rockfish in the region. It also contains high modeled abundance of darkblotched rockfish, greenstriped rockfish, longspine thornyhead, and sablefish. This area encompasses 0.34% of the trawl effort off California.

30. Spanish Canyon (Figures A.22-A.24)

Spanish Canyon is a new proposed EFH Conservation Area totaling 23.0 square miles in an important section of coastline. This area would include the entire canyonhead of Spanish Canyon currently in the trawl RCA and extend to adjoin state waters adjacent to Big Flat State Marine Conservation Area. It includes high occurrence and abundance of greenstriped rockfish, darkblotched rockfish, petrale sole, and sablefish according to NWFSC models. Most of the area is high predicted coral habitat. This proposal would increase the connectivity between the Mendocino Canyon feature and the major submarine canyon complex to the south (Spanish Canyon and Delgada Canyon complex).

31. Delgada Canyon Deep (Figures A.25-A.26)

Delgada Canyon Deep is a new proposed EFH Conservation area encompassing deepwater habitat primarily deeper than 600 fathoms. It contains several biogenic habitat records including pennatulids, sponges, and the black coral Chrysopathes speciosa. It includes substantial additional canyon habitat that is part of the Delgada Canyon complex in deeper water. These canyons all have high predicted coral habitat and high modeled occurrence and abundance for longspine thornyhead and sablefish. We have discussed this area extensively with the fishing industry, and the current northern waypoints are based on specific feedback from the industry, including reductions in size to avoid important trawl grounds shallower than 600 fathoms. This area encompasses 0.03% of total recent trawl effort in California.

32. Delgada Canyon Reopening (Figures A.25-A.26)

In the Delgada Canyon Reopening, an area would be removed from the northern section of the existing Delgada Canyon EFH Conservation Area. The fishing industry requested reopening this area in order to restore a historically important tow on the shelf between Delgada and Spanish Canyons. The area that would be reopened is very important productive habitat for groundfish and includes some high predicted coral habitat, isolated patches of hard substrate, and the northern canyon edge. The Trawl RCA and deeper depths of the existing Delgada Canyon EFH Conservation Area would not be affected by this reopening. As with all other proposed reopenings, our support for this reopening is contingent on the adoption of the closure components of this proposal as a regional package.

33. South Delgada Canyonheads (Figures A.25-A.26)

Comprehensive Conservation Proposal Oceana, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Ocean Conservancy July 31, 2013

South Delgada Canyonheads is a new proposed EFH Conservation Area encompassing 14.5 square miles. It is coextensive with the trawl RCA boundaries and encompasses the major canyonheads in the Delgada complex. According to NWFSC models, the area includes high abundance and occurrence of greenstriped and darkblotched rockfish; it also includes and high abundance and occurrence of chilipepper rockfish, Dover sole, and lingcod according to NCCOS models. Since the area is entirely within the current Trawl RCA, it will not result in any displacement of current trawl effort. However, the EFH data indicates that 0.25% of California’s total recent trawl effort takes place within this area; the discrepancy is likely due to the buffers on trawl intensity maps.

34. Noyo Canyonhead (Figures A.27-A.28)

Noyo Canyonhead is a new proposed 5.9 square mile EFH Conservation Area that would encompass the trawl RCA portion of Noyo canyon and the canyonhead. This area contains multiple coral and sponge records from Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute, including the bubble gum coral Paragorgia sp., and is very high predicted coral habitat. This area is an important fishing ground close to Ft. Bragg, but most of it is currently part of the Trawl RCA; the area includes only 0.02% of total recent trawl effort off California. Due to the targeted nature of this closure, there will still be opportunities for continuous tows along canyon edges.

35. Navarro Canyon (Figures A.27-A.28)

Navarro Canyon is a new proposed EFH Conservation area encompassing 24.6 square miles of deepwater canyon habitat adjacent to the 700 fathom EFH trawl closure. This area contains multiple records of biogenic habitat, including the Gorgonian coral Euplexaura marki, the glass sponge Aphrocallistes vastus, and numerous other sponges and pennatulids. The boundaries of this area have been discussed and revised based on fishing industry input to avoid areas of high importance to the trawl fleet. Earlier versions of this area included the canyon to the south and much more of the shallower depths of the canyon, but those were removed based on feedback we received. According to the EFH data, there is very low trawl intensity in this area (< 0.01% of California total recent trawl intensity).

36. Pt. Arena Canyonheads (Figures A.27-A.28)

Pt. Arena Canyonheads is a new proposed EFH Conservation Area encompassing 6.6 square miles exclusively within the Trawl RCA. The area is in a high coral habitat suitability region, encompassing three major canyonheads. This area is located directly offshore of Point Arena Reef, Point Arena State Marine Protected Area, and the Point Arena North EFH Conservation Area. It would provide increased protection for the trawl RCA in a major biogeographic transition zone. Since the entire area is currently within the Trawl RCA, there will be no displacement of current trawl effort. Our proposal includes a channel allowing continuous North-South tows between this proposed area and the Point Arena North EFH Conservation Area.

37. Saunders Reef (Figures A.29-A.30)

Comprehensive Conservation Proposal Oceana, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Ocean Conservancy July 31, 2013

Saunders Reef is a new proposed EFH Conservation area encompassing 34.6 square miles. The southern boundary is drawn based on specific input from the fishing industry designed to maintain potential shrimp trawl grounds, and the northern boundary is drawn to create continuity with the Northern boundary of the Saunders Reef State Marine Conservation Area while avoiding significant trawl grounds. This proposal is part of a significant proposed restructuring of the Point Arena South Biogenic EFH Conservation Area. In addition to this changes, there is a proposal to reopen a portion of the area, and doing so would split the Conservation Area into two. The Shoreward (northeast) portion of this proposed area would adjoin and be reclassified as part of the new Saunders Reef EFH Conservation Area. The overall configuration of this area achieves a 1:1 exchange between the total area reopened and closed. This area would increase protection of shallow soft sediment shelf habitat, including known records of Pennatulids. According to the EFH Phase I Report data, there is very low trawl intensity in this area (<0.01% of California total recent trawl intensity).

38. Pt. Arena Biogenic Reopening (Figures A.29-A.30)

In the Pt. Arena Biogenic Reopening, a significant section of the Pt. Arena Biogenic South EFH Conservation Area would be removed. A substantial area—41.7 square miles—of trawl grounds that were closed in 2006 would be reopened in soft sediment shelf habitat in the 60-100 fathom depth range. This proposed reopening is based on a specific geographic request from the fishing industry in exchange for agreement to additional closures in this region. This reopening includes some sponge and pennatulid records and is among the major EFH protections in Northern California. As with all other proposed reopenings, our support for this reopening is contingent on the adoption of the closure components of this proposal as a regional package.

39. Pt. Arena Biogenic South Expansion (Figures A.29-A.30)

The Pt. Arena Biogenic South Expansion is a 7.1 square mile proposed addition to the remaining Pt. Arena Biogenic South area. It includes additional trawl RCA area and the southern tip of the hard substrate feature outside the existing conservation area. The Southeast waypoint was based on specific geographic input from the fishing industry. There is local knowledge about highly unique geological features in this area, described as large rocky pinnacles surrounded by soft bottom. According to the EFH Phase I Report data, there is very low trawl intensity in this area (<0.01% of California total recent trawl intensity).

40. Russian River (Figures A.29-A.30)

The Russian River is a new proposed EFH Conservation Area encompassing 20.3 square miles of the trawl RCA. The area, known locally as “the football,” includes a large bank and canyonhead, and input from fishermen suggests that this area is highly productive for many groundfish target species. There are observations of the glass sponges Farrea occa and Acanthascus dawsoni, the demosponge Ampilectus sp., and the Scleractinian coral Desmophyllum sp. (Steierhoff et al. 2011, NOAA TECH Memo NOS NCCOS 138). Since the

Comprehensive Conservation Proposal Oceana, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Ocean Conservancy July 31, 2013 entire area is currently part of the trawl RCA, there will be no displacement of recent trawl effort in this region.

41. Gobbler’s Knob (Figures A.31-A.32)

Gobbler’s Knob is a new proposed EFH Conservation Area encompassing 18.0 square miles straddling the northern boundary of Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuary. According to local knowledge, this area was named by fishermen because it would “gobble” up trawl nets due to the various snags and trawl hangs in the area. This area includes the majority of a new hard and mixed substrate feature that had not been identified when the PFMC made its final 2005 EFH decision. This closure is also proposed to gain additional hard and soft substrate representation within the Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuary in the context of the proposed reopenings. The southern half of the area is currently within the trawl RCA, and the southern boundary was determined based on specific geographic input from the fishing industry. The southern boundary maintains a mile-wide trawl path between this area and the proposed Cordell Bank EFH Conservation Area Expansion. The Northern boundary maintains an important trawl tow along the southern rim and edge of Bodega Canyon, allowing for continuous tows along the 200 fathom depth range on the western boundary of this area and to the west of Cordell Bank. A small portion of Gobbler’s Knob remains open on the northern tip to preserve trawl tows around Bodega Canyon. This area encompasses 0.05% of recent California total trawl intensity.

42. Cordell Bank Expansion (Figures A.31-A.32)

The Cordell Bank Expansion would enlarge the Cordell Bank EFH Conservation Area in three separate components totaling 71.2 square milesto provide an additional spatial buffer between the Cordell Bank features in light of proposed reopenings. Much of the expansion is currently inside the existing trawl RCA. The southeast expansion encompasses an area that local knowledge suggests contains significant trawl hangs and high risk of interaction with overfished species; some fishermen report voluntarily avoiding the area as a result. This area would provide additional representative shelf habitat and a much larger buffer between the trawl open area and the Cordell Bank feature itself, while adding over 6 square miles of hard and mixed substrate within new protection.

The southeast expansion also encompasses areas surveyed by the Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuary that contain significant Pennatulids and other biogenic soft sediment habitat. The westernmost deepwater expansion is designed to include broader continuous protection and to increase connectivity between the Cordell Bank feature and the deepwater areas. It is proposed in exchange for the Cordell Bank South Reopening. The westward extension buffering the Cordell Bank feature will protect remaining hard substrate currently open to trawling and a major study site documenting dozens of coral species, including Gorgonians. Parts of the westward extension are currently in the trawl RCA, while other parts are currently open. The westward extension includes an area explored by ROV in 2010 as part of NOAA’s Deep-Sea Coral research program. The Cruise Report (see citation below) documented the following on a single dive on the continental slope at depths to 500 meters:

Comprehensive Conservation Proposal Oceana, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Ocean Conservancy July 31, 2013

During the 11 hours of ROV dive operations, significant findings included: (1) over 2400 total records of at least six deep sea coral (DSC) species (Paragorgia sp., Plumarella longispina, Swiftia sp., Anthomastus ritteri, Virgularia sp., and unidentified cup corals), three of which are habitat-forming species (Paragorgia sp., Plumarella longispina, Anthomastus ritteri – over 220 observations) (Figure 4) and over 60 total observations of various morphological forms of sponges (foliose, upright, barrel, shelf, vase, mound)(Figure 5); (2) observations of large rockfishes in bedrock habitat around 200 meters; (3) regular occurrences of fishes and invertebrates in close association with [deep-sea corals] and sponges; and (4) evidence of human disturbances to the seafloor including a bottom trawl stretched on the seafloor, long lines, monofilament line, piece of cable, and trash.

The study also provided detailed information about the water chemistry of this region, which we include by reference here.

Images of Coral and Sponges taken from inside proposed Cordell Bank Expansion at depths up to 500m from Graiff et al. 2011.

Comprehensive Conservation Proposal Oceana, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Ocean Conservancy July 31, 2013

The expansion includes a proposed enlargement of the remaining easternmost portion of the Cordell Bank EFH Conservation Area to adjoin it with the state waters boundary along the Pt. Reyes National Seashore. It includes the federal waters portion of a major hard substrate feature that has been newly mapped and would restore connectivity of protections from the shoreline to the eastern boundary of the reopening. This area has had minimal trawl intensity in recent years according to EFH Phase I data. The proposed expansion of the Cordell Bank EFH Conservation Area encompasses 0.16% of recent bottom trawl effort off California.

43. Cordell Bank East Reopening (Figures A.31-A.32)

Cordell Bank East Reopening is a proposed removal of a significant section of the existing Cordell Bank EFH Conservation Area based on specific requests from the fishing industry. This reopening would allow continuous North-South tows that are currently precluded. The habitat in the area that would be reopened includes soft sediment with biogenic habitat such as sea pens, sea whips, and brittle star fields, often referred to by fishermen as “petrale grass.” These areas are sensitive to trawl impacts. Under the current closure, there is a continuous untrawled swath of this sensitive soft sediment habitat type that has allowed to recover since 2006 and has been monitored by Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuary with ROV transects. As with all other proposed reopenings, our support for this reopening is contingent on the adoption of the closure components of this proposal as a regional package.

44. Cordell Bank South Reopening (Figures A.31-A.32)

Cordell Bank South Reopening is a proposed removal of a portion of the Cordell Bank EFH Conservation Area based on specific requests from the fishing industry. This reopening would restore several trawl tows including shelf tows and slope tows out to over 200 fathoms. This reopening is proposed to maintain a strong fishing portfolio in light of the proposed closures in the Gulf of the Farallones and the Cordell Bank Expansion. A historic tow path to the south of Cordell Bank would be reopened to allow continuous tows out to 200 fathoms (outside of RCA) and longer, more continuous tows west of Rittenberg Bank. A tow path along the upper canyons was restored based on request from the fishing industry. As with all other proposed reopenings, our support for this reopening is contingent on the adoption of the closure components of this proposal as a regional package.

45. Rittenberg Bank (Figures A.31-A.32)

Rittenberg Bank is a new proposed EFH Conservation Area that would adjoin the northwestern boundary of the Fanny Shoals EFH Conservation Area. The proposed area is identical to the latest version of this area as proposed by the Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary (GFMNS). The rationale for this area is largely based on visual surveys and mapping conducted by GFNMS that indicate high habitat value for multiple groundfish, including corals and sponges. Because the boundaries of this area are drawn to be contiguous with the existing Fanny Shoals EFH Conservation Area, it includes a portion of soft shelf habitat between these features. This soft sediment area appears to be an important crabbing ground, and we are proposing that only trawling be prohibited; all other gear, including fixed gear, would be allowed. Some

Comprehensive Conservation Proposal Oceana, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Ocean Conservancy July 31, 2013 fishermen indicated this soft sediment area between Rittenberg Bank and Fanny Shoals is potentially trawlable, but it does not appear to be a major trawl path. We consulted with NOAA’s Deep Sea Coral Research and Technology Program on this proposed site and received feedback confirming that this area is identified as having significant corals and sponges; it has earned the nickname “sponge heaven.”

Images from Rittenberg Bank Courtesy GFNMS

Juvenile yelloweye rockfish with Metriduim, Yellowtail and yelloweye rockfish hovering biogenic habitat, and exposed rock over biogenic habitat

46. Fanny Shoals Shelf Extension (Figures A.31-A.32)

Fanny Shoals Shelf Extension is a proposed expansion of the Fanny Shoals EFH Conservation Area that would widen the overall bottom trawl protections evenly to provide a buffer around the hard substrate features. We had multiple rounds of discussion about possible shelf habitat closures, with little success. The areas proposed here encompass some hard bottom from Fanny Shoals that is currently outside EFH conservation area and then a primarily soft bottom area. There are two observations of sponges in this area. NMFS data suggests low trawl activity in this area over the past 12 years (0.02% of total recent trawl effort off California).

47. Cochrane Bank (Figures A.31-A.32)

Cochrane Bank is a new proposed EFH Conservation Area totaling 9.2 square miles that would adjoin the western boundary of Fanny Shoals EFH Conservation Area. This area is among the only newly identified hard substrate features in federal waters off California (EFHRC 2012); it had not been identified in the 2005 EFH process. The area includes 3.5 square miles of hard substrate and 245 biogenic observations, primarily sponges. GFNMS has done extensive surveys and mapping in the area and identified a long-lived species of black coral called Christmas Tree Coral (Leiopathes dendrochristos), which is used as habitat by multiple species of juvenile and adult groundfish. This particular species was previously thought to inhabit only southern California waters. This proposed area is similar to that being proposed by the Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary for this feature. Our proposed area is slightly larger to adjoin with the state waters boundary more continuously and to maintain an additional buffer around the hard substrate features. The overall configuration maintains an important continuous

Comprehensive Conservation Proposal Oceana, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Ocean Conservancy July 31, 2013 tow path between Fanny Shoals and the Farallon Escarpment. This area contains 0.02% of recent bottom trawl effort off California.

48. Farallon Escarpment to Pioneer Canyon Deep (Figures A.31-A.32)

Farallon Escarpment to Pioneer Canyon Deep is a proposed new EFH Conservation Area totaling 172.9 square miles adjacent to the 700 fathom EFH Footprint Closure. The Escarpment is an impressive geologic feature with exceptionally steep slope and a wide variety of submarine canyons. There is not currently any hard substrate in this area identified in EFHRC 2012, however, ROV evidence indicates that continental shelf bedrock is exposed on the fault scarps and the exposed areas of bedrock provide habitat for fish and three-dimensional corals and sponges. This area is subject to very little trawling and contains high value known and modeled habitat value. There are 32 coral observations, 53 sponge observations and 11 pennatulid observations within this area. Few parts of the Farallon Escarpment have been observed in situ, but places that have been explored so far have high diversity and densities of corals and sponges. The majority of this area is predicted high habitat suitability for corals (136.8 square miles), increasing the coverage of high suitable habitat within EFH Conservation in the Central Upper Slope Biogeographic region by 23%.

The shoreward boundary has been drawn after substantial conversations and is designed to maintain valuable trawl tows. Around the islands, the shoreward boundary generally follows the 200 fathom contour and includes an 8 mile section of the shoreward boundary of the Trawl RCA at 100 fathoms. South of Fanny Shoals, the shoreward boundary extends out to generally follow the 600 fathom depth contour continuously through the deeper area of Pioneer Canyon. The Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary has conducted visual surveys in the Farallon Escarpment and is proposing a section of the Farallon Escarpment that overlaps with a section of this proposed area including unique geological features known as “headless canyons.” Please refer to the GFNMS proposal for additional information and data about this area.

Comprehensive Conservation Proposal Oceana, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Ocean Conservancy July 31, 2013

Images taken with remotely operated vehicle in the proposed Farallon Escarpment to Pioneer Canyon Deep Conservation Area.

Bubblegum coral, white finger sponge and Aurora rockfish and sedimented White Sponge blackgill rockfish and sessile sea cucumbers images courtesy GFNMS.

49. Pioneer Canyon (Figures A.31-A.32)

Pioneer Canyon is a new proposed EFH Conservation Area encompassing 13.2 square miles of slope canyon habitat in an area with the highest coral and sponge bycatch rates in the Central California Coast region. This area was identified in collaboration with the Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary, and the Sanctuary facilitated meetings with fishermen to refine the boundaries. The boundaries are designed to maintain continuous tow paths along depth contours on the northern edge of Pioneer Canyon, the southern edge of Pioneer Canyon, and a “canyon jump” tow in deeper waters. This area includes multiple records of corals and sea pen observed with video by the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute, and it also encompasses the highest relative coral and sponge bycatch in the region as documented by onboard observers in the West Coast Groundfish Observer Program. According to the EFHRC data on trawl intensity, this area contains less than 0.01% of the recent trawl intensity off California.

50. Pioneer Canyonhead (Figures A.31-A.32)

Pioneer Canyonhead is a proposed new 13.6 square milenEFH Conservation Area slightly shoreward of the current trawl RCA at the head of Pioneer Canyon. The boundaries were determined based on specific geographic feedback from the fishing industry and are designed to include areas with high quality habitat for a wide suite of groundfish species—both overfished and target species (e.g., widow rockfish). It includes high abundance and occurrence of greenstriped rockfish and Petrale sole based on NWFSC models. Local knowledge indicates that this area contains some hard substrate features not currently identified in the EFH Phase I Report. The area has high predicted coral suitability and was identified in the context of establishing EFH Conservation Areas focused on current RCA boundaries so that important 68

Comprehensive Conservation Proposal Oceana, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Ocean Conservancy July 31, 2013 habitat is protected into the long-term as overfished species rebuild. This site is located in the Northern Management Area of the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary. This site encompasses 0.02% of recent trawl intensity off California.

51. Cabrillo Canyon (Figures A.33-A.35)

Cabrillo Canyon is a proposed new EFH Conservation Area adjacent to the 700 fathom trawl footprint closure. It includes significant areas that are deeper than 700 fathoms that were not included in the 2006 EFH trawl closures. This area includes corals observed with ROV video by the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute, as well as hard substrate and high predicted coral habitat. Discussions to date with industry have indicated this area is deep enough so as not to disrupt trawl tows, and the area encompasses only 0.01% of California recent trawl intensity. It also contains an isolated rocky feature identified in the EFH Phase I Report substrate data.

52. Pescadero Reef (Figures A.33-A.35)

Pescadero Reef is a proposed new EFH Conservation Area drawn around one of the few hard bottom features currently remaining open to trawling along the shelf in this region. It maintains a wide channel (over 1.5 miles wide at its narrowest point) between the state waters boundary and is drawn fairly tightly around the hard bottom feature to address concerns from the trawl fishery. This feature was identified as an area of interest in collaboration with the Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary, and the Sanctuary helped facilitate regional discussions with the fishing industry to refine the boundaries of this area. There may be flatfish tows around this feature.

53. Ascension Canyonhead (Figures A.33-A.35)

Ascension Canyonhead is a proposed new EFH Conservation area encompassing 4.1 square miles of the upper Ascension Canyon. The area includes 18 coral observations, 10 sponge observation, and 9 pennatulid observations. This closure is targeted to include the majority of the biogenic habitat records and hard substrate features in the canyon. Much of this area is within the current trawl RCA, but the boundaries are drawn to include the identified features. The specific boundaries were drawn based on input from the fishing industry and are designed to maintain a “horseshoe tow” between Ascension Canyonhead and Ano Nuevo Canyonhead, a tow along the northern canyon edge, and a continuous tow path between these canyonheads and the proposed closure of the deeper parts of these canyons. We are proposing this area independently from the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary’s proposed modifications to provide for continued discussion of further win-win exchanges.

54. Ascension and Ano Nuevo Canyons (Figures A.33-A.35)

Ascension and Ano Nuevo Canyons is a new proposed EFH Conservation Area that is part of the consensus agreement contained in the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary’s EFH Proposal. We provide additional analysis here, but please refer to the MBNMS Proposal for a detailed description of the rationale for including this area.

Comprehensive Conservation Proposal Oceana, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Ocean Conservancy July 31, 2013

55. Ano Nuevo Canyonhead (Figures A.33-A.35)

Ano Nuevo Canyonhead is a proposed new EFH Conservation Area encompassing 1.7 square miles of the upper Ano Nuevo Canyon. The area includes additional hard substrate features within the upper canyon, and there are multiple biogenic records in the immediate vicinity of this area. Much of this area is within the current trawl RCA, but the boundaries of this area are drawn to include identified features. The specific boundaries were drawn based on input from the fishing industry and are designed to maintain a “horseshoe tow” between Ascension Canyonhead and Ano Nuevo Canyonhead, a tow along the northern canyon edge, and a continuous tow path between these canyonheads and the proposed closure of the deeper parts of these canyons. We are proposing this area independently from the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary’s proposed modifications to provide for continued discussion of further win-win exchanges.

56. South of Davenport (Figures A.33-A.35)

South of Davenport is a new proposed EFH Conservation Area that is part of the consensus agreement contained in the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary’s EFH Proposal. We provide additional analysis here, but please refer to the MBNMS Proposal for a detailed rationale for including this area.

57. Lower Portion of Cabrillo Canyon (Reopening) (Figures A.33-A.35)

Lower Portion of Cabrillo Canyon is a proposed removal of the Monterey Bay EFH Conservation Area and the EFH 700 fathom trawl footprint closure. This reopening is part of the consensus agreement contained in the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary’s EFH Proposal. We provide additional analysis here, but please refer to the MBNMS Proposal for a detailed rationale for this reopening.

58. SW of Smooth Ridge (Figures A.33-A.35)

SW of Smooth Ridge is a new proposed EFH Conservation Area that is part of the consensus agreement contained in the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary’s EFH Proposal. We provide additional analysis here, but please refer to the MBNMS Proposal for a detailed rationale for including this area.

59. Monterey Canyon Deep Expansion (Figures A.33-A.35)

Monterey Canyon Deep Expansion is a proposed 7.4 square mile addition to the Monterey Bay EFH Conservation Area encompassing canyon habitat. The entire area is high predicted coral habitat suitability. The area includes 0.78 square miles of identified hard substrate in Monterey Canyon and encompasses a wide depth range from approximately 220 fathoms to deeper than 700 fathoms. This area has 50 coral observations and 1,607 pennatulid observations. It includes high occurrence and abundance of longspine thornyheads and sablefish. The boundaries of this area are based on specific geographic input from the fishing industry and would provide

Comprehensive Conservation Proposal Oceana, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Ocean Conservancy July 31, 2013 additional protection of high value habitat without disrupting major tow paths in the region. The area includes significant biogenic habitat records and would add significant rocky reef feature and the deeper part of Monterey Canyon. It contains 0.02% of recent trawl effort off CaliforniaWe are proposing this area independently from Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary’s proposed modifications to provide for continued discussion of further win-win exchanges.

60. Outer Soquel Canyon (Figures A.33-A.35)

Outer Soquel Canyon is a new proposed EFH Conservation Area that is part of the consensus agreement contained in the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary’s EFH Proposal. We provide additional analysis in Appendix C (Table C), but please refer to the MBNMS Proposal for a detailed rationale for including this area.

61. South of Mars Cable (Reopening) (Figures A.33-A.375)

South of Mars Cable is a proposed removal from the Monterey Bay EFH Conservation Area. It is part of the consensus agreement contained in the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary’s EFH Proposal. We provide additional analysis here, but please refer to the MBNMS Proposal for a detailed rationale for reopening this area.

62. West of Carmel Canyon (Reopening) (Figures A.36-A.37)

West of Carmel Canyon is a proposed removal from the Monterey Bay EFH Conservation Area that is part of the consensus agreement contained in the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary’s EFH Proposal. We provide additional analysis here, but please refer to the MBNMS Proposal for a detailed rationale for reopening this area.

63. West of Soberanes Point (Figures A.36-A.37)

West of Soberanes Point is a new proposed EFH Conservation Area that is part of the consensus agreement contained in the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary’s EFH Proposal. We provide additional analysis here, but please refer to the MBNMS Proposal for a detailed description for including this area.

64. East of Sur Ridge (Reopening) (Figures A.36-A.37)

East of Sur Ridge is a proposed removal from the Monterey Bay EFH Conservation area that is part of the consensus agreement contained in the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary’s EFH Proposal. We provide additional analysis here, but please refer to the MBNMS Proposal for a detailed rationale for reopening this area.

Comprehensive Conservation Proposal Oceana, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Ocean Conservancy July 31, 2013

65. Triangle South of Surveyors Knoll (Figures A.36-A.37)

Triangle South of Surveyors Knoll is a new proposed EFH Conservation Area that is part of the consensus agreement contained in the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary’s EFH Proposal. We provide additional analysis here, but please refer to the MBNMS Proposal for a detailed rationale for including this area.

66. Sur Canyon Slot Canyons (Reopening) (Figures A.36-A.37)

Sur Canyon Slot Canyons is a proposed removal from the Monterey Bay EFH Conservation Area that is part of the consensus agreement contained in the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary’s EFH Proposal. We provide additional analysis here, but please refer to the MBNMS Proposal for a detailed rationale for reopening this area.

67. Sur Platform Rocks (Figures A.36-A.37)

Sur Platform Rocks is a new proposed EFH Conservation Area that is part of the consensus agreement contained in the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary’s EFH Proposal. We provide additional analysis here, but please refer to the MBNMS Proposal for a detailed rationale for including this area.

68. Between Partington Point and Lopez Point (Figures A.36-A.37)

Between Partington Point and Lopez Point is a new proposed EFH Conservation Area that is part of the consensus agreement contained in the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary’s EFH Proposal. We provide additional analysis here, but please refer to the MBNMS Proposal for a detailed rationale for including this area.

69. La Cruz Canyon to Piedras Blancas (Figures A.38-A.39)

La Cruz Canyon to Piedras Blancas is a new proposed EFH Conservation Area encompassing 37.1 square miles of nearshore canyon, hard substrate, and trawl RCA. It would be fully adjacent to the Piedras Blancas State Marine Protected Area.. This shallow depth area (less than 150 fathoms) includes two major submarine canyons and their canyonheads and one of the few hard bottom features in this region. The area encompasses the current trawl RCA and extends to the state waters boundary to include important nearshore habitat. The southern portion of the area is adjacent to the Piedras Blancas State Marine Protected Area and includes the portion of the Piedras Blancas reef extending into federal waters, which would provide substantial habitat connectivity and management benefits. This proposed area is a larger, more comprehensive alternative to the Areas 14 and 15 of the MBNMS proposal that was finalized in separate negotiations.

Comprehensive Conservation Proposal Oceana, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Ocean Conservancy July 31, 2013

70. Point Buchon (Figures A.38-A.39)

Point Buchon is a new proposed EFH Conservation Area totaling 49.4 square miles. It includes an important area of the trawl RCA in nearshore federal waters adjacent to the Pt. Buchon State Marine Protected Area and follows the state waters boundary to include key hard and mixed bottom off Avila. The portion of the RCA that is included is in an area of steep slope and high predicted coral habitat. This area was drawn to avoid key halibut trawl grounds off Avila as well as historic pink shrimp trawl grounds to the south while including key habitat features inside and near the RCA. There is currently no data available in the EFH Phase I Report about trawl intensity in this region, but information on trawling from 2000-2005 indicates very low trawling in this area.

71. East Santa Lucia Bank (Northwest Expansion) (Figures A.38-A.39)

East Santa Lucia Bank (Northwest Expansion) is a proposed addition to the East Santa Lucia Bank EFH Conservation Area. This area extends the existing East Santa Lucia Bank EFH Conservation Area to the north into an area with multiple biogenic habitat records. It also extends it to the west to include additional hard substrate on the Bank itself. It would add a total of 47.61 square miles of hard substrate that is currently open to trawling. According to NMFS trawl surveys, the area on the Bank contains multiple coral records and several distinct areas with glass sponges. There is currently no data available in the EFH Phase I Report about trawl intensity in this region, and information on trawling from 2000-2005 indicates lower trawl effort in this area relative to surrounding areas. It does appear, however, that some of this area may overlap with current trawl effort.

72. East Santa Lucia Bank (Southwest Expansion) (Figures A.38-A.39)

East Santa Lucia Bank (Southwest Expansion) is a proposed addition to the East Santa Lucia Bank EFH Conservation Area. This area connects East Santa Lucia Bank to the Point Conception EFH Conservation Area. It contains significant hard substrate, multiple sea pen records from trawl surveys, and the southernmost end of Santa Lucia Bank. There is currently no data available in the EFH Phase I Report about trawl intensity in this region. From logbook data, it appears that this area would avoid heavily trawled areas on either side.

73. Pt. Arguello (Figures A.38-A.39)

Pt. Arguello is a new proposed EFH Conservation Area encompassing 88.7 square miles of shelf habitat including the trawl RCA. It would adjoin the existing Pt. Conception EFH Conservation Area. The proposed area includes a significant feature at the northern end within the current RCA that was identified in discussions with fishermen, as well as additional canyonheads not encompassed in the current Pt. Conception EFH Conservation Area. It also includes multiple sponge and other biogenic records. There is currently no data available in the EFH Phase I Report about trawl intensity in this region. This area was drawn to avoid key trawl areas just to the North as indicated by 2000-2005 trawl logbook information.

Comprehensive Conservation Proposal Oceana, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Ocean Conservancy July 31, 2013

74. Southern California Bight (Figures A.40-A.41)

Open areas to trawling in the Southern California Bight have an unusually wide and topographically diverse geology, with an extended continental shelf and network of seamounts.

The Southern California Bight is a new proposed EFH Conservation Area encompassing 16,440.7 square miles of habitat from Pt. Conception to the Mexican Border. According to NMFS data and additional information, this area appears to fall outside the footprint of trawl activity.

Sponges south of Santa Cruz Island, CA (left) and at Piggy Bank (right) (NOAA)

Numerous records of corals and sponges exist in the area, as well as diverse morphologic features. Due to the lack of trawl effort, however, the area could alternatively be treated as part of the trawl footprint closure. The area contains 3,358 (18.5%) of the total 18,116 coral observation, 10,213 (85.8%) of the 11,902 sponge observation, and the 5,611 (17.6) of the 31,859 pennatulid observations in areas currently outside permanent trawl closures in the west coast EEZ, according to the NMFS Deep Sea Coral Database. The area contains 857.3 square

Comprehensive Conservation Proposal Oceana, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Ocean Conservancy July 31, 2013 miles of hard substrate identified in the EFH Phase I Report, representing 46.0% of the total identified hard substrate outside permanent trawl closures in the west coast EEZ. The area contains 27.8% of the area with high predicted coral habitat suitability that is outside permanent trawl closures in the west coast EEZ. Currently, only 188 (5.9%) of the 3,160 coral observations and 84 (1.4%) of 5,996 sponge observations and 47 (3.5%) of 1,323 are contained within permanent trawl closures in the Southern-Upper Slope biogeographic region.

This closure would also fully encompass the boundaries of the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary and, thereby, increase the amount of Sanctuary area currently protected from 49% to 100%.

Slide courtesy NOAA.

ThisProtecting this area would be consistent with NOAA's precautionary policy regarding deep- sea corals. It would create a "study first" system in which areas in which the industry seeks approval to trawl would have to be explored first. The boundaries of this area have been drawn based on discussions with the fishing industry and are not intended to overlap with current tow areas. In federal waters, areas shallower than the following depths would remain open to trawling:

 100 fathoms from Oceanside to Mexican Border;  100 fathoms at San Pedro Bay;  100 fathoms at Santa Monica Bay; and  120 fathoms from Hueneme Canyon to Pt. Conception.

Comprehensive Conservation Proposal Oceana, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Ocean Conservancy July 31, 2013

75. EEZ Deepwater Footprint Modification (A.42)

The proposed EEZ Deepwater Closure would add to the 700-fathom footprint to extend bottom trawl prohibitions from the 3,500 meter depth contour to the outer extent of the U.S. EEZ. These deepwater areas are known to be highly sensitive to trawling, and the possibility for speculative tows in this depth range remains real and unaddressed under current management. This proposal would add 123,221.6 square miles of deepwater habitat to bottom trawl protection. These protections are consistent with action taken by the PFMC in its final EFH motion in 2005, but the protections were later partially disapproved by NMFS. This area includes 195 distinct coral observations (including the black coral Bathypathes alternata and the stony coral Fungiacyathus marenzelleri, the gorgonian coral Chrysogorgia sp., and the mushroom soft coral Anthomastus robustus at depths from 3800-4100m depth and the bamboo coral Keratoisis sp. and Lepidisis sp) and 1141 pennatulid observations, indicating that this area may contain deep sea coral and sponge ecosystems. According to the EFH Data, the deepest identified depth within the US west coast EEZ is 4,810 meters. Since so little of this has been mapped or explored in situ, a precautionary approach is warranted.

Currently, 23% of the lower slope in the central and southern biogeographic regions is inside permanent trawl closure. This closure would protect 100% of this vast region. This propossa; would increase the area of the west coast EEZ inside permanent trawl closure from 47% to 86%, nearly doubling the total area protected. It would do so without impacting the trawl fleet.

The Final Rule implementing the 2006 EFH Regulations states that “NMFS acknowledges that features that occur beyond 3500 m include hydrothermal vents, soft-bottom sediments, and hard bottom areas with high biogenic structures such as deep sea corals. All or most of the deep sea environment may be highly sensitive to impact, including at very low levels of fishing effort (e.g. a single contact), and have extended recovery times (over seven years).”

76. Draft Monterey Bay State Waters Potential Reopening Concept*

The potential reopening of a section of California state waters in Monterey Bay is noted here as an initial draft concept that has emerged from ongoing discussions with the fishing industry about changes to existing bottom trawl closures throughout this region. This area is currently closed to all bottom trawling by California Fish and Game Code and any reopening to bottom trawling would require California legislation, in a separate process outside the purview of the PFMC or the EFH 5-year review. The potential reopening is presented in this proposal for analytical purposes only to indicate how the overall suite of protections could change based on a package including adoption of the proposed EFH regulatory changes and California legislative change specific to the area in Monterey Bay state waters.

The draft area presented here is 33.0 square miles of exclusively soft sediment habitat. Our preliminary analysis of this draft area indicates that the area contains 16.7% of the trawl effort within MBNMS from 2000-2005 before the 2006 closure went into effect, thereby restoring a substantial portion of the regional fishing opportunities that were displaced. This area contains a high amount (1,747) of pennatulid observations as the result of the MARS cable running through

Comprehensive Conservation Proposal Oceana, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Ocean Conservancy July 31, 2013 this area. This indicates widely distributed biogenic habitat in this area, and effects on these structure forming invertebrates should be monitored as trawling resumes in the area.

Reopening state waters can only occur through California legislative change, which is an entirely separate process and venue from the PFMC’s EFH process. However, we would be prepared to support specific legislation that would reopen a geographically specified section of Monterey Bay state waters, as part of a negotiated agreement. We would envision the reopening accompanied by additional impact studies and observer coverage to further the science of bottom trawl impacts by local researchers in the Monterey Bay region.

Our support would be contingent on the Pacific Fishery Management Council adopting the full set of negotiated closures that would be a part of this exchange. However, we would not support legislative changes affecting areas beyond the specific Monterey Bay reopening, nor would we support the legislature giving the California Fish and Game Commission the authority to reopen any further areas outside the California Halibut Trawl Grounds.

Comprehensive Conservation Proposal Oceana, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Ocean Conservancy July 31, 2013

VII. References

Anderson, O. F. and M. R. Clark (2003). Analysis of bycatch in the fishery for orange roughy, Hoplostethus atlanticus, on the South Tasman Rise. Marine Freshwater Research 54: 643-652.

Andrews, A. H., L. A. Kerr, G. M. Cailliet and K. H. Coale (2003). Determining the age and growth of three species of deep-sea coral from the Davidson Seamount off Central California. Second International Symposium on Deep-sea Corals, Erlangen, Germany.

Ardizzone, G. D. and P. Pelusi (1983). Regression of a Tyrrhenian Posidonia oceanica prairie exposed to nearshore trawling. Rapports et Proces-Verbaux des Reunions Conseil International pour l'Exploration Scientifique de la Mer Mediterranee. 28(3): 175-177.

Ardizzone, G. D., P. Tucci, A. Somaschini and A. Belluscio (2000). Is bottom trawling partly responsible for the regression of Posidonia oceanica meadows in the Mediterranean Sea? Effects of fishing on nontarget species and habitats: biological, conservation and socioeconomic issues. Oxford, UK., Blackwell Science Ltd.: 37-46.

Ault, J., J. Serafy, D. DiResta and J. Dandelski (1997). Impacts of commercial fishing on key habitats within Biscayne National Park. Annual Report. Cooperative Agreement No. CA-5250-6-9018: iii + 80 p.

Baillon, S., J-F. Hamel, V.E. Wareham, and A. Mercier. 2012. Deep cold-water corals as nurseries for fish larvae. Frontiers in Ecology and Environment, 10(7): 351-356.

Bavestrello, G., C. Cerrano, D. Zanzi and R. CattaneoVietti (1997). Damage by fishing activities in the Gorgonian coral Paramuricea clavata in the Ligurian Sea. Aquatic Conservation-Marine And Freshwater Ecosystems 7(3): 253-262.

Beaulieu, S. (2001). Life on glass houses: sponge stalk communities in the deep-sea. Marine Biology 138(4): 803- 817.

Bjorklund, T., R. Crandall, P. Johnson, M. Lilley, and T. McGinnis (2008). Sponge Cruise presentation. University of Washington and Washington SeaGrant. Available at: http://www.wsg.washington.edu/research/ecohealth/ecosystem/glass_sponge/WASG2008CruiseRep.pdf.

Bowlby, E., J. Bright, K. Brenkman, P. Etnoyer, S. Rooney and C. Brady. 2011. A characterization of deep-sea coral and sponge communities on the continental shelf of Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary, Northern Washington using a Remotely Operated Vehicle in 2010. A report to the NOAA Deep-Sea Coral Research and Technology Program. November 30, 2011.

Brancato, M.S., C. E. Bowlby, J. Hyland, S.S. Intelmann and K. Brenkman. (2007). Observations of Deep Coral and Sponge Assemblages in Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary, Washington. Cruise Report: NOAA Ship McArthur II Cruise AR06-06/07. Marine Sanctuaries Conservation Series NMSP-07-03. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Sanctuary Program, Silver Spring, MD. 48 pp.

Brodeur, R. (2001). Habitat-specific distribution of Pacific ocean perch (Sebastes alutus) in Pribilof Canyon, Bering Sea. Continental Shelf Research 21(3): 207-224.

Brodeur, R.D. and W.G. Pearcy (1984). Food habits and dietary overlap of some shelf rockfish (Genus Sebastes) from the Northeastern Pacific Ocean. Fishery Bulletin 82: 269-293. Brown, S.C., J.J Bizzarro, D.A. Ebertand G.M. Cailliet (2012). Diet of the Aleutian skate (Bathyraja aleutica, Gilbert 1896) from the central Gulf of Alaska Shelf: regional and interannual variation. Environmental Biology of Fishes 95: 3–20.

Comprehensive Conservation Proposal Oceana, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Ocean Conservancy July 31, 2013

Buhl-Mortensen, L. and P. Mortensen (2004). Crustaceans associated with the deep-water gorgonian corals Paragorgia arborea (L., 1758) and Primnoa resedaeformis (Gunn., 1763). Journal Of Natural History 38(10): 1233-1247.

Cartes, J. E., J. B. Company and F. Maynou (1994). Deepwater decapod crustacean communities in the Northwestern Mediterranean: influence of submarine canyons and season. Marine Biology 120: 221- 229.

Christiansen, S. and S. Lutter (2003). Is there any hope for the conservation of cold-water corals in Europe? Second International Symposium on Deep-sea Corals, Erlangen, Germany.

Collie, J. S., G. A. Escanero, L. Hunke and P. C. Valentine (1996). Scallop dredging on Georges Bank: photographic evaluation of effects on benthic epifauna. ICES C.M. 1996/Mini:9.: 14 p.

Collie, J. S., G. A. Escanero and P. C. Valentine (1997). Effects of bottom fishing on the benthic megafauna of Georges Bank. Marine Ecology Progress Series 155: 159-172.

Collie, J. S., S. J. Hall, M. J. Kaiser and I. R. Poiner (2000). A quantitative analysis of fishing impacts on shelf-sea benthos. Journal of Animal Ecology v.69(no.5): p.785-798.

Collie, J. S., Galo A.; Valentine, Page C. (2000). Photographic evaluation of the impacts of bottom fishing on benthic epifauna. ICES Journal of Marine Science v.57(no.4): p.987-1001.

Conway, K. W., J. V. Barrie, W. C. Austin and J. L. Luternauer. (1991). Holocene sponge bioherms on the Western Canadian continental shelf. Continental Shelf Research 11: 771-790.

Conway, K. W., M. Krautter, J. V. Barrie, and M. Neuweiler. (2001). Hexactinellid sponge reefs on the Canadian continental shelf: A unique "living fossil". Geoscience Canada 28: 71-78.

Conway, K. W., M. Krautter, J. V. Barrie, F. Whitney, R. E. Thomson, G. Mungov and M. Bertram (2003). Sponge reefs in the Queen Charlotte Basin, Canada: Oceanographic and geological controls on growth and development. Second International Symposium on Deep-sea Corals, Erlangen, Germany.

Conway, K. W., J. V. Barrie, and M. Krautter. (2004). Modern siliceous sponge reefs in a turbid, siliciclastic setting: Fraser River delta, British Columbia, Canada. N. Jb. Geol. Palaont. Mh. 2004: 335-350.

Conway, K. W., M. Krautter, J. V. Barrie, F. Whitney, R. E. Thomson, H. Reiswig, H. Lehnert, G. Mongov, and M. Bertram. (2005). Sponge reefs in the Queen Charlotte Basin, Canada: controls on distribution, growth and development. Pages 601-617 in A. Freiwald and J. M. Roberts, eds. Cold-water Corals and Ecosystems. Springer- Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg.

Conway, K. W., J. V. Barrie and M. Krautter. (2005). Geomorphology of unique reefs on the western Canadian shelf: sponge reefs mapped by multibeam bathymetry. Geo-Marine Letters, in press (available on-line).

Cook, S.E. (2005). Ecology of the Hexactinellid Sponge Reefs on the Western Canadian Continental Shelf, MS thesis, Dept of Biology, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, 2005.

Cook, S.E., K. W. Conway and B. Burd. (2008). Status of the glass sponge reefs in the Georgia Basin. Marine Environmental Research 66: S80–S86.

Costello, M. J., M. McCrea, A. Freiwald, T. Lundalv, L. Jonsson, B. J. Bett, T. van Weering, H. de Haas, J. M. Roberts and D. Allen (2003). Function of deep-sea cold-water Lophelia coral freefs as fish habitat in the eastern Atlantic. Second International Symposium on Deep Sea Corals, Erlangen, Germany.

Comprehensive Conservation Proposal Oceana, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Ocean Conservancy July 31, 2013

Cordes, E., J. Nybakken and G. VanDykhuizen (2001). Reproduction and growth of Anthomastus ritteri (Octocorallia : Alcyonacea) from Monterey Bay, California, USA. Marine Biology 138(3): 491-501.

DeAlteris, J. T., L. G. Skrobe and K. M. Castro (2000). Effects of mobile bottom fishing gear on biodiversity and habitat in offshore New England waters. Northeastern Naturalist v.7(no.4): p.379-394.

Eastmann, J. T. and R. R. Eakin (1999). Fishes of the genus Artedidraco (Pisces, Artedidraconidae) from the Ross Sea, Antarctica, with the description of a new species and color morph. Antarctic Science 11(1): 13-22.

Else, P., L. Haldorson and K. J. Krieger (2002). Shortspine thornyhead (Sebastolobus alascanus) abundance and habitat associations in the Gulf of Alaska. Fisheries Bulletin 100(2): 193-199.

Enticknap, B., G. Shester, M. Gorny, and M. Kelley (2013). Important Ecological Areas Seafloor Habitat Expedition off the Southern Oregon Coast. Oceana, available at: http://www.pcouncil.org/wp- content/uploads/D6d_PC2_APR2013BB.pdf.

Engel, J. and R. Kvitek (1998). Effects of otter trawling on a benthic community in Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary. Conservation Biology v.12(no.6): 1204-1214.

Etnoyer, P. and L. Morgan (2003). Occurrences of habitat-forming deep-sea corals in the northeast Pacific Ocean. Second International Symposium on Deep-sea Corals, Erlangen, Germany.

Ferry, L.A. and G.M. Cailliet (1996). Sample size sufficiency and data analysis: are we characterizing and comparing diet properly? In: D. MacKinlay, K. Shearer, K. (editors) Feeding ecology and nutrition in fish: proceedings of the symposium on the feeding ecology and nutrition in fish, p. 71–80. International congress on the biology of fishes, San Francisco, CA, 14–18 July 1996.

Fossa, J. H., P. B. Mortensen and D. M. Furevik (2002). The deep-water coral Lophelia pertusa in Norwegian waters: Distribution and fishery impacts. Hydrobiologia 471(1): 1-12.

Freeland, H. and K. Denman (1982). A topographically controlled upwelling center off Southern Vancouver Island. Journal of Marine Research 40: 1069-1093.

Freese, J. L. and B. L. Wing (2003). Juvenile red rockfish, Sebastes sp., associations with sponges in the Gulf of Alaska. Marine Fisheries Review 65(3): 38-42.

Gaichas, S.K., K.Y. Aydinand R.C. Francis (2010). Using food web model results to inform stock assessment estimates of mortality and production for ecosystem–based fisheries management. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 67: 1490–1506.

Gotelli, N., and Colwell. R.K. (2001). Quantifying biodiversity: procedures and pitfalls in the measurement and comparison of species richness. Ecology Letters 4: 379–391.

Graiff, K., D. Roberts, D. Howard, P. Etnoyer, G. Cochrane, J. Hyland and J. Roletto. (2011). A characterization of deep-sea coral and sponge communities on the continental slope west of Cordell Bank, using a remotely operated vehicle. Report to NOAA Deep-Sea Coral Program.

Grehan, A. J., V. Unnithan, A. J. Wheeler, F. X. Monteys, T. Beck, M. Wilson, J. Guinan, J. H. Hall- Spencer, A. Foubert, M. Klages and J. Thiede (2003). Evidence of major fisheries impact on cold-water corals off the Porcupine Bank, West Coast of Ireland: Implications for offshore coral conservation within the European Union. Second International Symposium on Deep-sea Corals, Erlangen, Germany.

Comprehensive Conservation Proposal Oceana, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Ocean Conservancy July 31, 2013

Guinotte, J.M. and A.J. Davies (2012) Predicted deep-sea coral habitat suitability for the U.S. West Coast. Report to NOAA-NMFS. 85 pp.

Hall-Spencer, J. M., V. Allain and J. H. Fossa (2002). Trawling damage to Northeast Atlantic ancient coral reefs. Proceedings Of The Royal Society Of London Series B-Biological Sciences 269(1490): 507-511.

Hall-Spencer, J. M. and P. G. Moore (2000). Scallop dredging has profound, long-term impacts on maerl habitats. ICES Journal of Marine Science 57(5): 1407-1415.

Heifetz, J. (2002). Coral in Alaska: Distribution, abundance, and species associations. Hydrobiologia 471: 19-28.

Heifetz, J., Stone, R. P., & Shotwell, S. K. (2009). Damage and disturbance to coral and sponge habitat of the Aleutian Archipelago. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 397, 295-303.

Heikoop, J., D. Hickmott, M. Risk, C. Shearer and V. Atudorei (2002). Potential climate signals from the deep-sea gorgonian coral Primnoa resedaeformis. Hydrobiologia 471, SI: 117-124.

Henry, L. (2001). Hydroids associated with deep-sea corals in the boreal north-west Atlantic. Journal Of The Marine Biological Association Of The United Kingdom 81(1): 163-164.

Herrnkind, W. and M. Butler (1994). Settlement Of Spiny Lobster, Panulirus-Argus (Latreille, 1804) in Florida - Pattern Without Predictability. Crustaceana 67(1): 46-64.

Hurturbia, J. (1973). Trophic diversity measurement in sympatric predatory species. Ecology. 54: 885–890.

Husebo, A., L. Nottestad, J. Fossa, D. Furevik and S. Jorgensen (2002). Distribution and abundance of fish in deep- sea coral habitats. Hydrobiologia 471, SI: 91-99.

Hyland, J., C. Cooksey, E. Bowlby and M. S. Brancato (2004). A pilot survey of deepwater coral/sponge assemblages and their susceptibility to fishing/harvest impacts at the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary (OCNMS). Cruise Report-NOAA Ship McArthur Cruis AR-04-04:Leg 2: 23 pp.

Johnson, H. P. (2006). Glass Sponge Reef Habitat in the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Cruise Plan for 2007.

Jones, J. B. (1992). Environmental impact of trawling on the seabed: a review. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 26(1): 59-67.

Johnson, J.E., C. Goldfinger and E. Suess (2003). Geophysical constraints on the surface distribution of authigenic carbonates across the Hydrate Ridge region, Cascadia margin. Marine Geology 202 (79-120).

Kaiser, M. J., K. Ramsay, C. A. Richardson, F. E. Spence and A. R. Brand (2000). Chronic fishing disturbance has changed shelf sea benthic community structure. Journal of Animal Ecology v.69(no.3): p.494-503.

Kaiser, M. J. and B. E. Spencer (1996). The effects of beam-trawl disturbance on infaunal communities in different habitats. Journal of Animal Ecology 65(3): 348-358.

Koenig, C. C., A. N. Shepard and S. Brooke (2003). Oculina Banks Restoration Project: Description and preliminary assessment. Second International Symposium on Deep-sea Corals, Erlangen, Germany.

Konecki, J. T. and T. Targett (1989). Eggs and larvae of Nototheniops larseni from the spongocoel of a hexactinellid sponge near Hugo Island, Antarctic Peninsula. Polar Biology 10: 197-198.

Koslow, J. A., G. W. Boechlert, D. M. Gordon, R. L. Haedrich, P. Lorance and N. Parin (2000). Continental slope

Comprehensive Conservation Proposal Oceana, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Ocean Conservancy July 31, 2013 and deep-sea fisheries: Implications for a fragile ecosystem. ICES Journal of Marine Science 57(3): 548-557.

Koslow, J. A., K. Gowlett-Holmes, J. K. Lowry, T. O'Hara, G. C. B. Poore and A. Williams (2001). Seamount benthic macrofauna off southern Tasmania: Community structure and impacts of trawling. Marine Ecology Progress Series 213: 111-125.

Krebs, C.J. (1999). Ecological methodology. Benjamin Cummings, Menlo Park, CA. 620 p

Krieger, K. J. (2001). Coral (Primnoa) impacted by fishing gear in the Gulf of Alaska., Ecology Action Center.

Krieger, K. J. and B. L. Wing (2002). Megafauna associations with deepwater corals (Primnoa spp.) in the Gulf of Alaska. Hydrobiologia v.471: p.83-90.

Lassalle, G., J. Lobry, F. Le Loc’h, P. Bustamante, G. Certain, D. Delmas, C. Dupuy, C. Hily, C. Labry, O. Le Pape, E. Marquis, P. Petitgas, C. Pusineri, V. Ridoux, V., J. Spitzand N. Niquil (2011). Lower trophic levels and detrital biomass control the Bay of Biscay continental shelf food web: Implications for ecosystem management. Progress in Oceanography 91: 561- 575.

Leys, S. P. and N. R. J. Lauzon (1998). Hexactinellid sponge ecology: growth rates and seasonality in deep water sponges. Journal Of Experimental Marine Biology And Ecology 230(1): 111-129.

Leys, S. P., K. Wilson, C. Holeton, H. M. Reiswig, W. C. Austin and V. Tunnicliffe. (2004). Patterns of glass sponge (Porifera, Hexactinellida) distribution in coastal waters of British Columbia, Canada. Marine Ecology Progress Series 283: 133-149.

Love, M.S., C.W. Mecklenburg, T.A. Mecklenburg and L.K. Thorsteinson (2005). Resource inventory of marine and estuarine fishes of the west coast and Alaska: a checklist of North Pacific and Arctic Ocean species from Baja California to the Alaska–Yukon border. Seattle, WA: United States Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division. 276 p.

Lundalv, T. and L. Jonsson (2003). Cold-water corals in the Skagerrak- more significant than expected but in deep peril. Second International Symposium on Deep-sea Corals, Erlangen, Germany.

MacDonald, D. S., M. Little, N. C. Eno and K. Hiscock (1996). Disturbance of benthic species by fishing activities: A sensitivity index. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 6(4): 257-268.

Manly, B.F.J. (2007). Randomization, bootstrap, and Monte Carlo methods in biology. Chapman and Hall/CRC Press, Inc. New York, NY.

Magorrian, B. H. (1995). The impact of commercial trawling on the benthos of Strangford Lough. Dissertation. i-v 218 p.

McAllister, D. E. a. S., G. (1994). Trawling and dredging impacts on fish habitat and bycatch. Coastal Zone Canada '94, Cooperation in the Coastal Zone: Conference Proceedings, Volume 4. Coastal Zone Canada Association, Bedford Institute of Oceanography, Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, Canada.: 1709-1718.

MCBI and Oceana (2004). Scientists' Statement on Protecting the World's Deep-sea Coral and Sponge Ecosystems. Available at: http://www.mcbi.org/what/dscstatement.htm.

Malecha, P. W., R. J. Stone and J. Heifetz (2002). Living substrate in Alaska: Distribution, abundance, and species associations. Manuscript submitted at the Symposium on Effects of Fishing Activities on Benthic Habitats, Tampa, Florida, November 12-14, 2002.

Comprehensive Conservation Proposal Oceana, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Ocean Conservancy July 31, 2013

Moreno, C. (1980). Observations on food and reproduction in Trematomus bernacchi (Pisces: Nototheniidae) from the Palmer Archipelago, Antarctica. Copeia 1980(1): 171-173.

Mortensen, P., M. Hovland, T. Brattegard and R. Farestveit (1995). Deep-Water Bioherms Of The Scleractinian Coral Lophelia-Pertusa (L) At 64-Degrees-N On The Norwegian Shelf - Structure And Associated Megafauna. Sarsia 80(2): 145-158.

Mortensen, P. B., L. Buhl-Mortensen, D. C. J. Gordon, G. B. J. Fader, D. L. McKeown and D. G. Fenton (2003). Evidence of fisheries damage to deep-water gorgonians in the Northeast Channel between Georges and Browns Banks, Nova Scotia. Second International Symposium on Deep-sea Corals, Erlangen, Germany.

Munehara, H. (1991). Utilization and ecological benefits of a sponge as a spawning bed by little dragon sculpin Blepsias cirrhosus. Jpn. J. Ichthyol. 38(2): 179-184.

NMFS (2004). Website: Resources Assessment and Conservation Engineering Field Videos--Underwater Habitat Footage, Alaska Fisheries Science Center. Available at: http://www.afsc.noaa.gov/race/media/videos/vids_habitat.htm.

NMFS (2005a). Final Environmental Impact Statement for Essential Fish Habitat Identification and Conservation in Alaska. (April 2005). Available at: http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/habitat/seis/efheis.htm.

NMFS (2005b). Final Groundfish Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Environmental Impact Statement. (December 2005). Available at: http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Groundfish-Halibut/Groundfish-Fishery-Management/NEPA- Documents/EFH-Final-EIS.cfm.

NMFS (2013). Groundfish Essential Fish Habitat Synthesis: A Report to the Pacific Fishery Management Council. NOAA NMFS Northwest Fisheries Science Center, Seattle, WA, April 2013. 107 p. Available at Pacific Fishery Management Council. Agenda Item D.6.b April 2013.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Coral Reef Conservation Program. 2010 NOAA Strategic Plan for Deep-Sea Coral and Sponge Ecosystems: Research, Management, and International Cooperation. Silver Spring, MD: NOAA Coral Reef Conservation Program. NOAA Technical Memorandum CRCP 11.67pp.

Norse, E. A. and L. Watling (1999). Impacts of mobile fishing gear: the biodiversity perspective. Fish habitat: essential fish habitat and rehabilitation. P.-i. L. R. B. (ed.). Bethesda, Maryland., American Fisheries Society, Symposium 22.

National Research Council (NRC) (2002). Effects of Trawling and Dredging on Seafloor Habitat. Washington, D.C, National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council.

OCNMS (2012). Deep Sea Coral and Sponge Communities Survey 2011. Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary. Available at: http://olympiccoast.noaa.gov/science/surveyscruises/2011/coral.html.

Opresko, D. M. (2005). A new species of antipatharian coral (Cnidaria: Anthozoa: Antipatharia) from the southern California Bight. Zootaxa 852: 1-10.

Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC) (2012). Pacific Coast Groundfish 5-year Review of Essential Fish Habitat; Report to the Pacific Fishery Management Council Phase I: New Information. Available at: http://www.pcouncil.org/groundfish/background/document-library/pacific-coast-groundfish-5-year-review-of-efh/.

Pikitch, E., P.D. Boersma, I.L. Boyd, D.O. Conover, P. Cury, T. Essington, S.S. Heppell, E.D. Houde, M. Mangel, D. Pauly, É.Plagányi, K. Sainsburyand R.S. Steneck (2012). Little Fish, Big Impact: Managing a Crucial Link in Ocean Food Webs. Lenfest Ocean Program. Washington, DC. 108 p.

Comprehensive Conservation Proposal Oceana, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Ocean Conservancy July 31, 2013

Pitcher, C. R., I. R. Poiner, B. J. Hill and C. Y. Burridge (2000). Implications of the effects of trawling on sessile megazoobenthos on a tropical shelf in northeastern Australia. ICES Journal of Marine Science 57(5): 1359-1368.

Pinkas, L.M., S. Oliphant and I.L.K. Iverson (1971). Food habits of albacore, bluefin tuna and Bonito in Californian waters. California Fish & Game. 152: 1-105.

Probert, P. K., D. G. McKnight and S. L. Grove (1997). Benthic invertebrate bycatch from a deep-water trawl fishery, Chatham Rise, New Zealand. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 7(1): 27-40.

Puig, et al. 2012. Ploughing the Deep Sea Floor. Nature. Doi:10.1038/nature11410

Reed, J. K. (2002). Deep-water Oculina coral reefs of Florida: Biology, impacts, and management. Hydrobiologia 471(1): 43-55.

Risk, M. H., JM ; Snow, MG ; Beukens, R (2002). Lifespans and growth patterns of two deep-sea corals: Primnoa resedaeformis and Desmophyllum cristagalli. Hydrobiologia v.471, SI: 125-131.

Roark, E. B., T. Guilderson, S. Flood-Page, R. B. Dunbar and B. L. Ingram (2003). Radiocarbon based age and growth rates estimates on deep-sea corals from the Pacific. Second International Symposium on Deep-sea Corals, Erlangen, Germany.

Rocha, L., I. Rosa and B. Feitoza (2000). Sponge-dwelling fishes of northeastern Brazil. Environmental Biology Of Fishes 59(4): 453-458.

Rumohr, H., H. Schomann and T. Kujawski (1994). Environmental impact of bottom gears on benthic fauna in the German Bight. Environmental impact of bottom gear on benthic fauna in relation to natural resources management and protection of the North Sea. NIOZ Rapport 1994-11. S. J. a. L. Pages 75-86 in de Groot, H.J. (eds.). Texel, The Netherlands.

Schoenherr, J. R. (1991). Blue whales feeding on high concentrations of euphausiids around Monterey Submarine Canyon. Canadian Journal of Zoology 69(583-594).

Scott, D. B. and M. J. Risk (2003). End moraines on the upper Scotian slope: relationship to deep-sea coral and fish habitats. Second International Symposium on Deep-sea Corals, Erlangen, Germany.

Shester, G., N. Donlou and M. Gorny (2012). Important Ecological Areas Seafloor Habitat Expedition, Monterey Bay, California. Oceana. Available at: http://www.pcouncil.org/wp- content/uploads/H6c_SUP_PC2_SEP2012BB.pdf.

Stone, R. (2004). Depth distribution, fisheries interactions, and habitat of deep-sea corals in the Aleutian Islands of Alaska-Preliminary research data presented at the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Seattle, Washington, NOAA Fisheries, Alaska Fisheries Science Center, Auke Bay Laboratory.

Stone, R. P. and P. W. Malecha (2003). Deep-sea coral habitat in the Aleutian Islands of Alaska. Second International Symposium on Deep-sea Corals, Erlangen, Germany.

Sulak, K. J., S. W. Ross and M. S. Nizinski (2003). Ichthyofauna of deep-sea coral banks on the continental slope off the southeastern United States. Second International Symposium on Deep-sea Corals, Erlangen, Germany.

Thrush, S. and P. K. Dayton (2002). Disturbance to marine benthic habitats by trawling and dredging: Implications for marine biodiversity. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics v.33: p.449-473.

Comprehensive Conservation Proposal Oceana, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Ocean Conservancy July 31, 2013

Tokranov, A. M. (1998). Some features of the biology of Thyriscus anoplus (Cottidae) in the Pacific waters of the northern Kuril Islands. J. Ichthyol. 38(3): 677-679.

Tong, R., Purser, A., Unnithan, V., & Guinan, J. (2012). Multivariate statistical analysis of distribution of deepwater gorgonian corals in relation to seabed topography on the Norwegian margin. PloS one, 7(8), e43534.

Thrush, S. F., J. E. Hewitt, G. A. Funnell, V. J. Cummings, J. Ellis, D. Schultz, D. Talley and A. Norkko (2001). Fishing disturbance and marine biodiversity: the role of habitat structure in simple soft-sediment systems. Marine Ecology Progress Series 223: 277-286.

Vetter, E. W. and P. K. Dayton (1998). Macrofaunal communities within and adjacent to a detritus-rich submarine canyon system. Deep-Sea Research II 45(25-54).

Watanabe, S., A. Metaxas, J. Sameoto, and P. Lawton (2009). Patterns in abundance and size of two deep-water gorgonian octocorals, in relation to depth and substrate features off Nova Scotia. Deep Sea Research Part I: Oceanographic Research Papers, 56(12), 2235-2248.

Wassenberg, T., G. Dews and D. Cook (2002). The impact of fish trawls on megabenthos (sponges) on the northwest shelf of Australia. Fish Res. 58: 141-151.

Wheeler, A. J., B. J. Bett, D. S. M. Billett, D. G. Masson and A. J. Grehan (2003). The impact of demersal trawling on northeast Atlantic coral ecosystems with particular reference to the Northern Rockall Trough. Second International Symposium on Deep-sea Corals, Erlangen, Germany.

Whitmire, C.E. and M.E. Clarke (2007). State of Deep Coral Ecosystems of the U.S. Pacific Coast: California to Washington. pp. 109-154. In: SE Lumsden, Hourigan TF, Bruckner SW and Dorr G (eds.) The State of Deep-sea Coral Ecoystems of the United States. NOAA Technical Memorandum CRCP-3. Silver Spring MD 365pp.

Whitney, F., K.W. Conway, R.E. Thomson, J.V. Barrie, M. Krautter and G. Mungov (2005). Oceanographic habitat of sponge reefs on the western Canadian continental shelf. Cont Shelf Res 25:211--226.

Whitney, F.A., W.R. Crawford and P.J. Harrison (2005). Physical processes that enhance nutrient transport and primary productivity in the coastal and open ocean of the Subarctic Pacific. Deep-Sea Research II, 52 (1-2). van Santbrink, J. W. and M. J. N. Bergman (1994). Direct effects of beam trawling on macrofauna in a soft bottom area in the southern North Sea. Environmental impact of bottom gear on benthic fauna in relation to natural resources management and protection of the North Sea. NIOZ Rapport 1994-11. S. J. a. L. Pages 147-178 in de Groot, H.J. (eds.). Texel, The Netherlands.

Yahel G., F. Whitney, H.M. Reiswig, D.I. Eerkes-Medrano and S.P. Leys (2005). In situ feeding and metabolism of glass sponges (Hexactinellida, Porifera) studied in a deep temperate fjord, submitted, Aquatic Microbial Ecology.

Yoklavich, M. M., H. G. Greene, G. M. Cailliet, D. E. Sullivan, R. N. Lea and M. S. Love (2000). Habitat associations of deep-water rockfishes in a submarine canyon: An example of a natural refuge. Fishery Bulletin (Washington D C) v.98(no.3): p.625-641.

Zador, S and S. Gaichas (2010). Ecosystem considerations for 2011. Appendix C of 2010 SAFE report for Alaska. North Pacific Fishery Management Council. Anchorage, AK. 153 p.

Baseline Analysis

Substrate Geographic Area Hard Substrate Mixed Substrate Soft Substrate Area (mi2) (mi2) (mi2) (mi2) Northern - Upper Slope 11,642.03 79.55 406.86 10,858.68 inside closure 872.15 28.99 69.65 762.66 outside closure 10,769.87 50.55 337.20 10,096.01 Northern - Shelf 13,121.64 645.06 375.39 6,266.68 inside closure 2,016.15 261.39 122.66 1,536.36 outside closure 11,105.48 383.67 252.73 4,730.32 Northern - Lower Slope 93,376.95 98.54 0.00 10,125.62 inside closure 93,363.58 98.54 0.00 10,123.08 outside closure 13.37 0.00 0.00 2.54 Central - Upper Slope 9,217.14 1,031.80 12.26 8,128.91 inside closure 2,390.93 533.68 0.32 1,821.58 outside closure 6,826.21 498.12 11.94 6,307.33 Central - Shelf 6,614.63 400.05 19.68 5,672.25 inside closure 2,633.13 346.00 17.33 2,261.86 outside closure 3,981.50 54.05 2.34 3,410.39 Central - Lower Slope 97,508.04 551.77 0.00 10,343.47 inside closure 22,717.61 551.77 0.00 10,092.22 outside closure 74,790.43 0.00 0.00 251.24 Southern - Upper Slope 18,049.06 935.10 71.70 17,009.03 inside closure 1,978.48 114.34 47.24 1,815.86 outside closure 16,070.58 820.77 24.46 15,193.17 Southern - Shelf 2,996.54 200.34 61.04 2,672.56 inside closure 1,907.03 142.49 43.15 1,696.80 outside closure 1,089.52 57.85 17.88 975.76 Southern - Lower Slope 62,438.79 2,235.32 0.00 8,186.46 inside closure 14,105.36 2,235.32 0.00 6,577.39 outside closure 48,333.43 0.00 0.00 1,609.07 Olympic Coast NMS 3,185.64 79.26 323.32 2,779.30 inside closure 633.27 54.47 130.23 447.39 outside closure 2,552.38 24.79 193.09 2,331.91 Gulf of the Farallones NMS 1,278.55 71.10 6.62 1,199.97 inside closure 383.47 62.31 6.20 314.81 outside closure 895.08 8.79 0.42 885.16 Cordell Bank NMS 528.61 16.76 11.87 499.97 inside closure 172.05 2.51 2.58 166.96 outside closure 356.55 14.26 9.29 333.01 Monterey Bay NMS 6,092.21 403.82 2.04 5,298.89 inside closure 3,601.84 355.73 2.04 2,858.21 outside closure 2,490.36 48.09 0.00 2,440.69 Channel Islands NMS 1,469.76 92.39 26.15 1,346.40 inside closure 721.47 49.88 24.42 643.50 outside closure 748.29 42.52 1.73 702.90 Washington 26,219.50 160.01 332.04 12,358.88 inside closure 19,636.80 112.40 138.36 6,354.81 outside closure 6,582.70 47.61 193.68 6,004.07 Oregon 70,412.85 592.97 475.50 9,798.33 inside closure 58,129.26 218.39 1,162.66 4,160.79 outside closure 12,283.59 374.58 -687.16 5,637.54 California 221,096.60 5,484.58 168.15 57,939.29 inside closure 66,444.23 4,041.09 108.05 26,761.73 outside closure 154,652.36 1,443.49 60.11 31,177.55 EEZ 317,958.52 6,237.56 975.70 80,096.04 inside closure 150,480.88 4,371.88 317.95 37,277.29 outside closure 167,477.64 1,865.68 657.75 42,818.74

Appendix C - Table A C1 Baseline Analysis

Biogenic Habitat Geographic Coral Sponge Pennatulid Area # Observations # Observations # Observations Northern - Upper Slope 18573.00 1676.00 2802.00 inside closure 14948.00 250.00 217.00 outside closure 3625.00 1426.00 2585.00 Northern - Shelf 7417.00 3272.00 666.00 inside closure 30.00 62.00 7.00 outside closure 7387.00 3210.00 659.00 Northern - Lower Slope 246.00 10.00 1243.00 inside closure 246.00 10.00 1243.00 outside closure 0.00 0.00 0.00 Central - Upper Slope 5591.00 426.00 21151.00 inside closure 3885.00 201.00 3063.00 outside closure 1706.00 225.00 18088.00 Central - Shelf 13911.00 1423.00 18160.00 inside closure 12288.00 394.00 10127.00 outside closure 1623.00 1029.00 8033.00 Central - Lower Slope 37398.00 0.00 10771.00 inside closure 37299.00 0.00 9638.00 outside closure 99.00 0.00 1133.00 Southern - Upper Slope 3160.00 5996.00 1323.00 inside closure 188.00 84.00 47.00 outside closure 2972.00 5912.00 1276.00 Southern - Shelf 2150.00 171.00 275.00 inside closure 1545.00 71.00 204.00 outside closure 605.00 100.00 71.00 Southern - Lower Slope 13820.00 10.00 873.00 inside closure 13724.00 10.00 865.00 outside closure 96.00 0.00 8.00 Olympic Coast NMS 22529.00 145.00 132.00 inside closure 14806.00 38.00 3.00 outside closure 7723.00 107.00 129.00 Gulf of the Farallones NMS 164.00 1000.00 192.00 inside closure 18.00 19.00 26.00 outside closure 146.00 981.00 166.00 Cordell Bank NMS 1375.00 8.00 3581.00 inside closure 93.00 5.00 629.00 outside closure 1282.00 3.00 2952.00 Monterey Bay NMS 38862.00 626.00 41246.00 inside closure 37112.00 504.00 19272.00 outside closure 1750.00 122.00 21974.00 Channel Islands NMS 2517.00 5313.00 686.00 inside closure 204.00 26.00 41.00 outside closure 2313.00 5287.00 645.00 Washington 22861.00 3427.00 686.00 inside closure 14884.00 233.00 217.00 outside closure 7977.00 3194.00 469.00 Oregon 1121.00 1368.00 2543.00 inside closure 294.00 93.00 556.00 outside closure 827.00 1275.00 1987.00 California 78307.00 8193.00 54068.00 inside closure 68995.00 760.00 24665.00 outside closure 9312.00 7433.00 29403.00 EEZ 102289.00 12988.00 57297.00 inside closure 84173.00 1086.00 25438.00 outside closure 18116.00 11902.00 31859.00

Appendix C - Table A C2 Baseline Analysis

Biogenic Habitat (Continued) Geographic Coral/Sponge Pennatulid Area Presence (mi2) Abundance (sum mean count) Presence (mi2) Abundance (sum mean count) Northern - Upper Slope 557.99 5121.90 407.76 362.55 inside closure 64.83 4579.67 33.17 6.80 outside closure 493.16 542.23 374.59 355.75 Northern - Shelf 163.97 6842.14 226.80 18.87 inside closure 20.91 1126.12 3.24 2.27 outside closure 143.06 5716.02 223.56 16.59 Northern - Lower Slope 33.49 129.17 56.77 550.43 inside closure 33.49 129.17 56.72 550.43 outside closure 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 Central - Upper Slope 153.56 1604.78 255.72 2658.82 inside closure 49.40 1088.77 72.45 1101.45 outside closure 104.17 516.01 183.27 1557.36 Central - Shelf 150.85 12181.47 282.35 6912.34 inside closure 94.49 8491.97 133.04 3628.12 outside closure 56.36 3689.51 149.31 3284.22 Central - Lower Slope 91.97 13365.65 106.36 2865.12 inside closure 75.57 13350.19 92.24 2581.78 outside closure 16.40 15.46 14.12 283.34 Southern - Upper Slope 269.24 28595.34 99.88 5137.27 inside closure 32.87 4015.52 12.44 1640.78 outside closure 236.36 24579.82 87.45 3496.49 Southern - Shelf 124.78 16291.73 57.86 1320.78 inside closure 69.18 9017.82 33.35 1101.81 outside closure 55.60 7273.91 24.51 218.97 Southern - Lower Slope 30.00 5334.55 16.61 560.33 inside closure 27.68 5240.55 14.67 554.83 outside closure 2.32 94.00 1.93 5.50 Olympic Coast NMS 67.09 8394.25 35.98 20.00 inside closure 18.55 5442.76 1.16 1.00 outside closure 48.54 2951.49 34.83 19.00 Gulf of the Farallones NMS 9.85 1872.67 23.79 258.49 inside closure 2.29 35.08 3.85 7.17 outside closure 7.56 1837.59 19.94 251.32 Cordell Bank NMS 24.29 432.55 62.23 1524.96 inside closure 7.67 68.40 15.71 274.92 outside closure 16.62 364.15 46.52 1250.03 Monterey Bay NMS 225.41 18954.66 294.64 9140.13 inside closure 157.91 17142.16 178.13 6065.96 outside closure 67.50 1812.51 116.51 3074.17 Channel Islands NMS 44.20 19325.91 28.92 2092.52 inside closure 19.49 5933.09 13.93 711.14 outside closure 24.71 13392.83 14.99 1381.38 Washington 213.01 10343.50 168.77 24.00 inside closure 68.11 5445.97 41.54 2.61 outside closure 144.91 4897.53 127.23 21.39 Oregon 465.00 1545.08 447.22 644.23 inside closure 46.47 349.87 37.66 329.03 outside closure 418.54 1195.21 409.56 315.21 California 904.04 77579.10 903.95 19718.42 inside closure 358.88 41244.18 380.00 10836.68 outside closure 545.16 36334.92 523.95 8881.75 EEZ 1,582.04 89467.68 1,519.92 20386.66 inside closure 473.46 47040.03 459.20 11168.31 outside closure 1,108.58 42427.66 1,060.72 9218.35

Appendix C - Table A C3 Baseline Analysis

Observer Bycatch Data Geographic Predicted Habitat Suitability Coral Sponge Sea Pens/Whips Area Area of High (4) (mi2) Standardized by Effort (After) Northern - Upper Slope 3,091.81 1236.07 25238.50 50.43 inside closure 243.17 6.57 54.69 0.72 outside closure 2,848.64 1229.49 25183.81 49.71 Northern - Shelf 226.09 174.84 463.75 45.57 inside closure 27.90 0.00 5.96 0.03 outside closure 198.20 174.84 457.79 45.53 Northern - Lower Slope 1,704.48 0.15 3.21 0.59 inside closure 1,704.24 0.05 3.21 0.59 outside closure 0.23 0.10 0.00 0.00 Central - Upper Slope 2,501.14 6.67 115.04 1.76 inside closure 590.84 0.17 0.49 0.00 outside closure 1,910.30 6.50 114.55 1.75 Central - Shelf 302.74 0.05 3.28 0.77 inside closure 186.14 0.00 0.23 0.06 outside closure 116.59 0.05 3.06 0.71 Central - Lower Slope 1,115.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 inside closure 1,114.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 outside closure 1.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 Southern - Upper Slope 2,473.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 inside closure 452.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 outside closure 2,021.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 Southern - Shelf 278.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 inside closure 184.92 0.00 0.00 0.00 outside closure 93.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 Southern - Lower Slope 1,659.82 0.00 0.00 0.00 inside closure 1,651.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 outside closure 8.36 0.00 0.00 0.00 Olympic Coast NMS 339.78 54.30 121.94 5.38 inside closure 37.83 0.00 0.00 0.00 outside closure 301.95 54.30 121.94 5.38 Gulf of the Farallones NMS 261.88 0.00 0.00 0.10 inside closure 58.73 0.00 0.00 0.00 outside closure 203.14 0.00 0.00 0.10 Cordell Bank NMS 135.30 0.00 0.00 0.27 inside closure 77.58 0.00 0.00 0.00 outside closure 57.72 0.00 0.00 0.27 Monterey Bay NMS 1,360.93 1.87 10.35 1.19 inside closure 686.91 0.00 0.00 0.06 outside closure 674.02 1.87 10.35 1.12 Channel Islands NMS 262.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 inside closure 83.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 outside closure 178.64 0.00 0.00 0.00 Washington 1,852.31 272.13 678.44 14.24 inside closure 601.44 3.17 17.43 0.64 outside closure 1,250.88 268.96 661.01 13.60 Oregon 2,205.50 676.10 23656.57 74.75 inside closure 934.90 0.20 15.24 0.69 outside closure 1,270.60 675.89 23641.33 74.07 California 9,301.10 469.55 1488.78 10.12 inside closure 4,622.65 3.52 31.91 0.07 outside closure 4,678.45 466.03 1456.87 10.04 EEZ 13,359.17 1417.78 25823.79 99.11 inside closure 6,159.23 6.90 64.58 1.41 outside closure 7,199.94 1410.89 25759.21 97.71

Appendix C - Table A C4 Baseline Analysis

NWFSC Species Models Geographic Darkblotched Rockfish Greenstriped Rockfish Longspine Thornyhead Petrale Sole Area Occurrence Abundance Occurrence Abundance Occurrence Abundance Occurrence Abundance Northern - Upper Slope 1367.44 7228.72 1004.78 5463.14 5221.51 181824.21 843.24 2017.63 inside closure 65.23 300.90 71.09 746.12 371.59 12492.51 66.96 200.06 outside closure 1302.21 6927.82 933.69 4717.02 4849.92 169331.70 776.28 1817.57 Northern - Shelf 1597.48 4551.62 2652.49 17625.94 113.34 128.10 7002.37 25008.28 inside closure 73.38 219.95 163.02 1886.75 25.93 10.94 955.16 1733.46 outside closure 1524.10 4331.66 2489.46 15739.19 87.40 117.17 6047.21 23274.82 Northern - Lower Slope 0.54 0.00 0.15 0.00 1189.22 55378.63 1.36 0.02 inside closure 0.54 0.00 0.15 0.00 1188.44 55346.76 1.36 0.02 outside closure 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.78 31.87 0.00 0.00 Central - Upper Slope 373.92 1059.08 392.65 635.75 4606.71 128538.22 529.29 1393.67 inside closure 50.79 183.09 62.59 143.32 1298.04 41312.58 82.86 226.05 outside closure 323.13 875.99 330.06 492.44 3308.67 87225.64 446.43 1167.62 Central - Shelf 356.35 499.80 990.25 2076.70 112.06 936.17 3437.19 15044.26 inside closure 72.14 129.72 225.04 557.61 83.48 738.86 1438.83 4792.25 outside closure 284.21 370.09 765.21 1519.09 28.58 197.32 1998.37 10252.01 Central - Lower Slope 0.16 0.00 0.06 0.00 728.49 31032.83 1.78 0.07 inside closure 0.16 0.00 0.06 0.00 728.44 31030.65 1.78 0.07 outside closure 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 2.18 0.00 0.00 Southern - Upper Slope 338.20 1029.93 735.63 1594.82 7976.74 115204.36 512.56 1062.64 inside closure 76.90 300.66 182.42 515.38 786.20 12261.88 130.29 279.22 outside closure 261.30 729.28 553.20 1079.44 7190.54 102942.48 382.28 783.42 Southern - Shelf 73.26 163.22 391.50 1062.39 66.17 78.14 1300.80 2663.06 inside closure 37.57 111.55 190.42 545.68 55.64 45.83 838.94 1522.09 outside closure 35.70 51.67 201.09 516.71 10.53 32.31 461.86 1140.98 Southern - Lower Slope 0.04 0.00 0.07 0.00 136.70 3574.28 0.32 0.03 inside closure 0.04 0.00 0.07 0.00 136.70 3574.27 0.32 0.03 outside closure 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 Olympic Coast NMS 327.14 985.47 586.44 5625.77 121.16 2181.74 1531.37 4675.03 inside closure 36.60 123.26 63.47 663.35 15.04 9.90 303.08 440.06 outside closure 290.54 862.21 522.97 4962.42 106.12 2171.84 1228.28 4234.97 Gulf of the Farallones NMS 27.96 12.14 138.63 277.58 119.20 2638.59 630.73 2980.91 inside closure 1.78 0.11 18.98 13.95 21.33 491.41 188.24 645.33 outside closure 26.18 12.03 119.65 263.63 97.87 2147.17 442.49 2335.59 Cordell Bank NMS 49.18 50.50 119.74 279.91 63.02 1383.44 223.62 1625.66 inside closure 9.90 5.24 28.59 93.12 31.30 761.63 52.49 407.10 outside closure 39.28 45.26 91.14 186.79 31.72 621.81 171.13 1218.56 Monterey Bay NMS 148.63 215.32 381.42 1051.94 1207.45 31317.34 1179.34 4379.83 inside closure 30.53 58.58 84.48 311.74 500.08 15434.17 483.01 1486.09 outside closure 118.10 156.74 296.94 740.20 707.37 15883.17 696.33 2893.73 Channel Islands NMS 45.48 82.33 198.02 353.67 186.77 1265.49 495.45 1305.60 inside closure 13.91 24.79 83.74 137.56 37.23 86.43 338.59 809.85 outside closure 31.58 57.54 114.28 216.11 149.54 1179.07 156.86 495.75 Washington 700.62 2868.26 1040.16 8235.20 1538.30 49257.36 2637.13 7727.21 inside closure 62.52 251.34 82.81 785.15 593.02 22278.84 439.24 486.18 outside closure 638.10 2616.92 957.35 7450.05 945.28 26978.52 2197.89 7241.03 Oregon 1922.23 7127.77 2280.83 13943.56 3568.61 108844.19 4199.95 14961.89 inside closure 71.68 263.42 142.23 1839.45 862.18 37454.25 277.91 861.24 outside closure 1850.55 6864.35 2138.59 12104.12 2706.44 71389.94 3922.04 14100.65 California 1484.61 4536.81 2846.67 6280.34 15044.27 358598.10 6792.24 24501.04 inside closure 242.55 731.11 669.84 1770.27 3219.35 97082.00 2799.50 7405.90 outside closure 1242.06 3805.70 2176.84 4510.07 11824.92 261516.10 3992.74 17095.13 EEZ 4107.40 14532.37 6167.59 28458.76 20151.06 516695.24 13629.18 47189.78 inside closure 376.75 1245.87 894.88 4394.86 4674.53 156814.30 3516.64 8753.32 outside closure 3730.65 13286.51 5272.71 24063.90 15476.53 359880.94 10112.54 38436.46

Appendix C - Table A C5 Baseline Analysis

NWFSC Species Models Geographic Sablefish Yelloweye Rockfish Area Occurrence Abundance Occurrence Abundance Northern - Upper Slope 6855.00 77578.45 182.46 DATA inside closure 457.66 4180.56 18.58 N/A outside closure 6397.35 73397.90 163.89 Northern - Shelf 3014.86 14201.20 566.63 inside closure 147.24 764.44 94.36 outside closure 2867.61 13436.76 472.27 Northern - Lower Slope 1120.12 5200.42 2.38 inside closure 1119.37 5196.05 2.38 outside closure 0.75 4.38 0.00 Central - Upper Slope 5372.07 52152.91 73.91 inside closure 1354.46 12175.83 20.30 outside closure 4017.61 39977.08 53.62 Central - Shelf 1033.24 3009.47 153.73 inside closure 237.56 795.41 87.77 outside closure 795.68 2214.07 65.96 Central - Lower Slope 683.30 2861.26 0.71 inside closure 683.25 2861.05 0.71 outside closure 0.05 0.21 0.00 Southern - Upper Slope 5128.93 30906.31 94.47 inside closure 589.98 4635.14 25.81 outside closure 4538.96 26271.17 68.66 Southern - Shelf 62.02 198.72 63.18 inside closure 29.36 101.65 38.83 outside closure 32.66 97.07 24.34 Southern - Lower Slope 110.86 472.81 0.09 inside closure 110.86 472.81 0.09 outside closure 0.00 0.00 0.00 Olympic Coast NMS 690.39 5551.49 156.39 inside closure 80.91 816.05 20.82 outside closure 609.47 4735.45 135.57 Gulf of the Farallones NMS 264.62 895.86 15.18 inside closure 35.55 58.47 4.81 outside closure 229.07 837.39 10.36 Cordell Bank NMS 183.78 682.04 8.80 inside closure 56.84 173.43 2.23 outside closure 126.95 508.60 6.57 Monterey Bay NMS 1627.54 16034.02 97.34 inside closure 532.56 4436.32 65.70 outside closure 1094.98 11597.70 31.64 Channel Islands NMS 144.19 704.41 22.91 inside closure 22.37 87.90 12.97 outside closure 121.82 616.51 9.94 Washington 2626.69 21210.35 239.13 inside closure 665.92 4731.26 25.24 outside closure 1960.76 16479.09 213.89 Oregon 6400.70 55355.08 466.70 inside closure 916.61 4529.32 84.18 outside closure 5484.10 50825.76 382.52 California 14353.28 110018.53 431.76 inside closure 3147.24 21922.42 179.41 outside closure 11206.03 88096.11 252.34 EEZ 23380.46 186581.65 1137.57 inside closure 4729.76 31182.92 288.83 outside closure 18650.70 155398.73 848.74

Appendix C - Table A C6 Baseline Analysis

Fishing Effort Geographic Bottom Trawl Effort Bottom Trawl Effort OR Shrimp Trawl Effort OR Shrimp Trawl Effort Area Intensity - Before Intensity - After Intensity - Before Intensity - After Northern - Upper Slope 37,339,660.00 63,560,660.00 0.462063 0.403212 inside closure 821,710.90 482,670.10 0 0.000203 outside closure 36,517,949.10 63,077,989.90 0.46 0.40 Northern - Shelf 16,986,110.00 21,618,100.00 1.888933 1.69971 inside closure 273,944.70 108,591.40 0 0.003371 outside closure 16,712,165.30 21,509,508.60 1.89 1.70 Northern - Lower Slope 111,201.10 63,796.25 0 0 inside closure 111,037.60 63,631.19 0 0 outside closure 163.50 165.06 0 0 Central - Upper Slope 12,710,090.00 12,645,470.00 0.001581 0 inside closure 229,682.40 30,548.01 0 0 outside closure 12,480,407.60 12,614,921.99 0.00 0 Central - Shelf 2,094,054.00 5,819,230.00 0.069661 0 inside closure 545,714.30 261,021.60 0 0 outside closure 1,548,339.70 5,558,208.40 0.07 0 Central - Lower Slope 43,743.50 17,305.96 0 0 inside closure 43,743.50 11,001.45 0 0 outside closure 0.00 6,304.51 0 0 Southern - Upper Slope 108,500.30 54,017.93 0 0 inside closure 41,255.09 4,266.04 0 0 outside closure 67,245.21 49,751.89 0 0 Southern - Shelf 4,624,098.00 3,653,963.00 0 0 inside closure 2,448,157.00 1,919,136.00 0 0 outside closure 2,175,941.00 1,734,827.00 0 0 Southern - Lower Slope 0.00 0.00 0 0 inside closure 0.00 0.00 0 0 outside closure 0.00 0.00 0 0 Olympic Coast NMS 11,218,420.00 6,788,052.00 0.077834 0.117591 inside closure 355,534.50 35,462.25 0 0 outside closure 10,862,885.50 6,752,589.75 0.08 0.12 Gulf of the Farallones NMS 2,239,575.00 1,077,217.00 0 0 inside closure 478,611.90 165,015.50 0 0 outside closure 1,760,963.10 912,201.50 0 0 Cordell Bank NMS 605,764.50 561,945.60 0 0 inside closure 74,959.27 65,845.95 0 0 outside closure 530,805.23 496,099.65 0 0 Monterey Bay NMS 10,344,230.00 6,842,050.00 0 0 inside closure 3,851,647.00 1,061,419.00 0 0 outside closure 6,492,583.00 5,780,631.00 0 0 Channel Islands NMS 10,489.26 7,437.75 0 0 inside closure 10,489.26 7,437.75 0 0 outside closure 0.00 0.00 0 0 Washington 23,824,100.00 24,828,540.00 0.199364 0.235865 inside closure 1,509,131.00 449,804.60 0.000575 0.00031 outside closure 22,314,969.00 24,378,735.40 0.20 0.24 Oregon 29,325,520.00 45,748,420.00 2.228439 1.894168 inside closure 278,352.50 299,815.80 0.006222 0.002976 outside closure 29,047,167.50 45,448,604.20 2.22 1.89 California 46,279,420.00 36,986,100.00 0.072268 0.090479 inside closure 7,932,070.00 3,579,420.00 0.024736 0.000288 outside closure 38,347,350.00 33,406,680.00 0.05 0.09 EEZ 99,429,040.00 107,563,060.00 2.500071 inside closure 9,719,553.50 120,431.20 0.031533 0.003574 outside closure 89,709,486.50 107,442,628.80 2.47 0.00

Appendix C - Table A C7 Proposed Areas Analysis

Site Geographic Proposed Area Depth (meters)

ID# Area State Management (mi2) Minimum Maximum 1 Olympic Footprint Modification WA Closure 97.49 -610.60 -1524.70 2 Olympic WA Closure 202.44 -94.30 -340.50 3 Quinault Canyon WA Closure 225.61 -175.20 -1680.50 4 Copalis Inner Shelf WA Closure 414.98 -18.90 -79.80 5 Grays Canyon WA Closure 63.28 -153.50 -489.30 6 Astoria Footprint Modification OR Closure 378.90 -507.60 -1749.60 7 Willapa Canyonhead OR Closure 43.67 -128.40 -395.20 8 Astoria Canyonhead OR Closure 18.19 -133.70 -506.50 9 S. Nehalem Reef OR Closure 104.21 -129.00 -191.70 10 Cascadia Shelf Hotspot OR Closure 152.25 -189.70 -440.60 11 Siletz Hotspot OR Closure 58.95 -265.60 -876.60 12 Hydrate Ridge/ Central OR Footrpint Modification OR Closure 196.54 -614.20 -1533.40 13 N. Daisy Bank OR Closure 18.59 -196.70 -445.50 14 N. Stonewall Bank OR Closure 57.85 -70.10 -153.80 15 Heceta Bank West OR Closure 68.08 -121.80 -520.70 16 Heceta Bank OR Closure 328.40 -77.70 -325.00 17 Cape Arago Reef OR Closure 127.36 -50.00 -173.50 18 Rogue Canyonhead OR Closure 26.43 -109 -266 19 S. Oregon Footrpint Modifcation OR Closure 128.64 -822 -1416 20 Crescent City Deepwater Hotspot CA Closure 51.60 -780 -1193 21 Point St. George Reef CA Closure 21.67 -61 -369 22 Eureka Footprint Modification CA Closure 156.95 -1097 -1586 23 Reading Rock Canyonheads CA Closure 29.37 -150 -368 24 Samoa Deepwater CA Closure 101.22 -501 -1115 25 Samoa Reef CA Closure 16.32 -185 -467 26 N. Eel River Canyon CA Closure 22.91 -66 -1103 27 S. Eel River Canyon CA Closure 18.16 -137 -923 28 Blunt Reef Expansion CA Closure 9.27 -65 -799 29 Mendocino Ridge Expansion CA Closure 77.53 -316 -1486 30 Spanish Canyon CA Closure 22.98 -99 -530 31 Delgada Canyon Deep CA Closure 69.24 -1063 -1478 32 Delgada Canyon Reopening CA Reopen 1.81 -131 -210 33 South Delgada Canyonheads CA Closure 14.45 -150 -527 34 Noyo Canyonhead CA Closure 5.91 -160 -616 35 Navarro Canyon CA Closure 24.59 -845 -1564 36 Pt. Arena Canyonheads CA Closure 6.64 -180 -356 37 Saunders Reef CA Closure 34.60 -83 -132 38 Pt. Arena Biogenic Reopening CA Reopen 41.70 -129 -196 39 Pt Arena Biogenic South Expansion CA Closure 7.07 -151 -357 40 Russian River CA Closure 20.34 -181 -286 41 Gobbler's Knob CA Closure 18.03 -202 -402 42 Cordell Bank Expansion CA Closure 71.15 -55 -1538 43 Cordell Bank East Reopening CA Reopen 13.28 -112 -179

Appendix C - Table B C-8 Proposed Areas Analysis

Site Geographic Proposed Area Depth (meters)

ID# Area State Management (mi2) Minimum Maximum 44 Cordell Bank South Reopening CA Reopen 12.19 -117 -678 45 Rittenberg Bank CA Closure 17.30 -82 -118 46 Fanny Shoals Shelf Extension CA Closure 26.82 -76 -109 47 Cochrane Bank CA Closure 9.22 -95 -158 48 Farallon Escarpment to Pioneer Canyon Deep CA Closure 172.87 -157 -1647 49 Pioneer Canyon CA Closure 13.20 -689 -1209 50 Pioneer Canyonhead CA Closure 13.56 -90 -142 51 Cabrillo Canyon CA Closure 30.81 -1107 -1642 52 Pescadero Reef CA Closure 7.09 -80 -98 53 Ascension Canyonhead CA Closure 4.11 -147 -697 54 Lower portion of Ascension and Ano Nuevo canyons CA Closure 19.45 -332 -1597 55 Ano Nuevo Canyonhead CA Closure 1.67 -182 -671 56 South of Davenport CA Closure 6.25 -89 -112 57 Lower Portion of Cabrillo Canyon CA Closure 17.26 -588 -1416 58 SW of Smooth Ridge CA Closure 6.12 -1163 -1310 59 Monterey Canyon Deep Expansion CA Closure 7.46 -668 -1257 60 Outer Soquel Canyon CA Closure 6.20 -95 -1009 61 S of Mars Cable CA Reopen 0.93 -1067 -1197 62 W of Carmel Canyon CA Reopen 9.17 -468 -1189 63 W of Sobranes Point CA Closure 24.20 -932 -1622 64 E of Sur Ridge CA Reopen 27.25 -931 -1237 65 Triangle S of Surveyors Knoll CA Closure 9.32 -1028 -1170 66 Sur Canyon Slot Canyons CA Reopen 44.55 -321 -1099 67 Sur Platform Rocks CA Closure 10.78 -51 -115 68 Between Partington Point and Lopez Point CA Closure 74.10 -477 -1211 69 La Cruz Canyon to Piedras Blancas CA Closure 37.08 -71 -393 70 Pt. Buchon CA Closure 49.38 -60 -269 71 East Santa Lucia Bank (Northwest Expansion) CA Closure 113.64 -402 -636 72 East Santa Lucia Bank (Southeast Expansion) CA Closure 57.95 -537 -748 73 Pt. Arguello CA Closure 88.66 -71 -294 74 Southern CA Bight CA Closure 16,440.67 -3 -2100 75 Proposed EEZ Closure CA Closure 123,221.66 -3065 -4810 76 Monterey State Waters Reopenings CA Reopen 33.00 -24 -84

Appendix C - Table B C-9 Proposed Areas Analysis

Substrate

Site Geographic Hard Substrate Mixed Substrate Soft Substrate

ID# Area (mi2) (mi2) (mi2) 1 Olympic Footprint Modification 0.00 0.00 97.49 2 Olympic 14.65 130.92 56.87 3 Quinault Canyon 0.00 0.00 225.61 4 Copalis Inner Shelf 5.74 0.00 409.24 5 Grays Canyon 0.50 0.00 62.78 6 Astoria Footprint Modification 0.00 0.00 348.33 7 Willapa Canyonhead 5.64 0.00 38.03 8 Astoria Canyonhead 0.00 0.00 18.20 9 S. Nehalem Reef 27.78 3.63 72.80 10 Cascadia Shelf Hotspot 0.00 0.00 151.90 11 Siletz Hotspot 0.01 16.74 41.33 12 Hydrate Ridge/ Central OR Footrpint Modification 6.56 0.00 177.04 13 N. Daisy Bank 0.00 7.22 11.32 14 N. Stonewall Bank 24.79 0.00 33.04 15 Heceta Bank West 9.97 21.94 39.63 16 Heceta Bank 153.00 16.67 162.55 17 Cape Arago Reef 11.18 89.93 26.66 18 Rogue Canyonhead 10.44 0.00 13.83 19 S. Oregon Footrpint Modifcation 0.00 0.00 122.68 20 Crescent City Deepwater Hotspot 0.00 0.00 51.60 21 Point St. George Reef 0.03 0.00 21.64 22 Eureka Footprint Modification 0.00 0.00 156.95 23 Reading Rock Canyonheads 0.00 0.00 29.37 24 Samoa Deepwater 9.45 0.00 91.77 25 Samoa Reef 2.28 1.50 12.54 26 N. Eel River Canyon 0.00 0.00 22.91 27 S. Eel River Canyon 0.00 0.00 18.16 28 Blunt Reef Expansion 2.43 0.00 6.84 29 Mendocino Ridge Expansion 63.46 0.00 14.07 30 Spanish Canyon 0.00 0.00 22.98 31 Delgada Canyon Deep 0.00 0.00 69.24 32 Delgada Canyon Reopening 0.00 0.00 1.81 33 South Delgada Canyonheads 0.00 0.00 14.45 34 Noyo Canyonhead 0.00 0.00 5.91 35 Navarro Canyon 0.00 0.00 24.59 36 Pt. Arena Canyonheads 0.00 0.00 6.64 37 Saunders Reef 0.00 0.00 34.60 38 Pt. Arena Biogenic Reopening 0.00 0.00 41.70 39 Pt Arena Biogenic South Expansion 0.03 0.00 7.04 40 Russian River 0.00 0.00 20.34 41 Gobbler's Knob 0.00 10.93 7.11 42 Cordell Bank Expansion 5.64 0.47 65.03 43 Cordell Bank East Reopening 0.00 0.00 13.28

Appendix C - Table B C-10 Proposed Areas Analysis

Substrate

Site Geographic Hard Substrate Mixed Substrate Soft Substrate

ID# Area (mi2) (mi2) (mi2) 44 Cordell Bank South Reopening 0.00 0.00 12.19 45 Rittenberg Bank 1.18 0.00 16.12 46 Fanny Shoals Shelf Extension 0.73 0.01 26.08 47 Cochrane Bank 3.53 0.00 5.69 48 Farallon Escarpment to Pioneer Canyon Deep 0.00 0.00 172.87 49 Pioneer Canyon 0.00 0.00 13.20 50 Pioneer Canyonhead 0.00 0.00 13.56 51 Cabrillo Canyon 0.56 0.00 30.25 52 Pescadero Reef 1.43 0.00 5.66 53 Ascension Canyonhead 0.11 0.00 3.99 54 Lower portion of Ascension and Ano Nuevo canyons 5.41 0.00 14.03 55 Ano Nuevo Canyonhead 0.04 0.00 1.63 56 South of Davenport 3.31 0.00 2.94 57 Lower Portion of Cabrillo Canyon 0.33 0.00 16.93 58 SW of Smooth Ridge 0.00 0.00 6.12 59 Monterey Canyon Deep Expansion 0.78 0.00 6.68 60 Outer Soquel Canyon 2.22 0.00 3.98 61 S of Mars Cable 0.00 0.00 0.93 62 W of Carmel Canyon 0.00 0.00 9.17 63 W of Sobranes Point 0.00 0.00 24.20 64 E of Sur Ridge 0.00 0.00 27.25 65 Triangle S of Surveyors Knoll 0.84 0.00 8.49 66 Sur Canyon Slot Canyons 0.10 0.00 44.45 67 Sur Platform Rocks 8.09 0.00 2.69 68 Between Partington Point and Lopez Point 0.00 0.00 74.10 69 La Cruz Canyon to Piedras Blancas 7.97 0.00 29.10 70 Pt. Buchon 1.04 0.40 47.93 71 East Santa Lucia Bank (Northwest Expansion) 47.61 0.00 66.02 72 East Santa Lucia Bank (Southeast Expansion) 16.90 0.00 41.05 73 Pt. Arguello 0.00 0.00 88.66 74 Southern CA Bight 857.31 38.67 15,497.82 75 Proposed EEZ Closure 0.00 0.00 1,860.20 76 Monterey State Waters Reopenings 0.00 0.00 33.00

Appendix C - Table B C-11 Proposed Areas Analysis

Biogenic Habitat

Site Geographic Coral Sponge Pennatulid

ID# Area # Observations # Observations # Observations 1 Olympic Footprint Modification 15 10 9 2 Olympic 7639 24 6 3 Quinault Canyon 1 7 6 4 Copalis Inner Shelf 0.00 1 6 5 Grays Canyon 158 2847 1 6 Astoria Footprint Modification 10 37 50 7 Willapa Canyonhead 1 2 2 8 Astoria Canyonhead 6 3 1 9 S. Nehalem Reef 6 7 13 10 Cascadia Shelf Hotspot 3 51 26 11 Siletz Hotspot 11 33 25 12 Hydrate Ridge/ Central OR Footrpint Modification 343 10 75 13 N. Daisy Bank 0.00 7 0.00 14 N. Stonewall Bank 4 7 2 15 Heceta Bank West 14 23 3 16 Heceta Bank 6 31 3 17 Cape Arago Reef 12 23 1 18 Rogue Canyonhead 0.00 2 0.00 19 S. Oregon Footrpint Modifcation 11 5 21 20 Crescent City Deepwater Hotspot 8 5 2 21 Point St. George Reef 0.00 0.00 0.00 22 Eureka Footprint Modification 2 12 30 23 Reading Rock Canyonheads 2 1 3 24 Samoa Deepwater 2071 5 582 25 Samoa Reef 21 2 8 26 N. Eel River Canyon 16 9 3 27 S. Eel River Canyon 0.00 4 0.00 28 Blunt Reef Expansion 0.00 0.00 0.00 29 Mendocino Ridge Expansion 3 5 0.00 30 Spanish Canyon 0.00 0.00 0.00 31 Delgada Canyon Deep 1 1 23 32 Delgada Canyon Reopening 0.00 0.00 0.00 33 South Delgada Canyonheads 0.00 0.00 1 34 Noyo Canyonhead 59 0 1 35 Navarro Canyon 2 3 9 36 Pt. Arena Canyonheads 0 0 0 37 Saunders Reef 0 0 2 38 Pt. Arena Biogenic Reopening 0 1 2 39 Pt Arena Biogenic South Expansion 0 0 0 40 Russian River 1 3 1 41 Gobbler's Knob 0 0 0 42 Cordell Bank Expansion 202 0 69 43 Cordell Bank East Reopening 2

Appendix C - Table B C-12 Proposed Areas Analysis

Biogenic Habitat

Site Geographic Coral Sponge Pennatulid

ID# Area # Observations # Observations # Observations 44 Cordell Bank South Reopening 4 0 3 45 Rittenberg Bank 110 689 39 46 Fanny Shoals Shelf Extension 0 2 1 47 Cochrane Bank 1 237 7 48 Farallon Escarpment to Pioneer Canyon Deep 32 53 11 49 Pioneer Canyon 2 0 8 50 Pioneer Canyonhead 0 0 1 51 Cabrillo Canyon 2 0 0 52 Pescadero Reef 0 0 0 53 Ascension Canyonhead 18 10 9 54 Lower portion of Ascension and Ano Nuevo canyons 161 0 105 55 Ano Nuevo Canyonhead 0 1 0 56 South of Davenport 13 25 17 57 Lower Portion of Cabrillo Canyon 1 0 1 58 SW of Smooth Ridge 0 0 20 59 Monterey Canyon Deep Expansion 50 0 1607 60 Outer Soquel Canyon 210 16 170 61 S of Mars Cable 0 0 0 62 W of Carmel Canyon 0 0 0 63 W of Sobranes Point 0 0 1 64 E of Sur Ridge 1 0 10 65 Triangle S of Surveyors Knoll 0 0 1 66 Sur Canyon Slot Canyons 0 0 1 67 Sur Platform Rocks 6 9 4 68 Between Partington Point and Lopez Point 7 0 61 69 La Cruz Canyon to Piedras Blancas 2 3 1 70 Pt. Buchon 1 4.00 5 71 East Santa Lucia Bank (Northwest Expansion) 1 7 45 72 East Santa Lucia Bank (Southeast Expansion) 0 0 19 73 Pt. Arguello 2 8 73 74 Southern CA Bight 3358 5972 1185 75 Proposed EEZ Closure 195 0 1141 76 Monterey State Waters Reopenings 1 0 1747

Appendix C - Table B C-13 Proposed Areas Analysis

Biogenic Habitat (continued)

Site Geographic Coral/Sponge/Penn Coral/Sponge Abundance (sum mean ID# Area Total Observations Presence (mi2) count) 1 Olympic Footprint Modification 34 3.84 0.00 2 Olympic 7669 12.11 2804.48 3 Quinault Canyon 14 2.25 0.00 4 Copalis Inner Shelf 7 0.39 0.00 5 Grays Canyon 3006 6.38 1942.25 6 Astoria Footprint Modification 97 11.21 4.00 7 Willapa Canyonhead 5 0.78 0.00 8 Astoria Canyonhead 10 2.22 0.00 9 S. Nehalem Reef 26 2.99 8.00 10 Cascadia Shelf Hotspot 80 13.75 0.00 11 Siletz Hotspot 69 8.44 0.00 12 Hydrate Ridge/ Central OR Footrpint Modification 428 7.79 112.56 13 N. Daisy Bank 7 1.66 0.00 14 N. Stonewall Bank 13 3.05 0.00 15 Heceta Bank West 40 7.86 2.00 16 Heceta Bank 40 12.08 0.00 17 Cape Arago Reef 36 3.87 787.87 18 Rogue Canyonhead 2 0.57 0.00 19 S. Oregon Footrpint Modifcation 37 3.40 0.00 20 Crescent City Deepwater Hotspot 15 3.20 0.00 21 Point St. George Reef 0 0.00 0.00 22 Eureka Footprint Modification 44 3.05 0.00 23 Reading Rock Canyonheads 6 1.14 0.00 24 Samoa Deepwater 2658 5.15 134.44 25 Samoa Reef 31 2.25 15.16 26 N. Eel River Canyon 28 2.89 3.07 27 S. Eel River Canyon 4 1.06 0.00 28 Blunt Reef Expansion 0 0.02 0.00 29 Mendocino Ridge Expansion 8 1.10 0.00 30 Spanish Canyon 0 0.00 0.00 31 Delgada Canyon Deep 25 0.89 0.00 32 Delgada Canyon Reopening 0 0.00 0.00 33 South Delgada Canyonheads 1 0.00 0.00 34 Noyo Canyonhead 60 1.15 48.11 35 Navarro Canyon 14 1.60 0.00 36 Pt. Arena Canyonheads 0 0.00 0.00 37 Saunders Reef 2 0.00 0.00 38 Pt. Arena Biogenic Reopening 3 0.33 0.00 39 Pt Arena Biogenic South Expansion 0 0.00 0.00 40 Russian River 5 0.39 7.00 41 Gobbler's Knob 0 0.15 0.00 42 Cordell Bank Expansion 271 2.01 89.97 43 Cordell Bank East Reopening 2 0.00 0.00

Appendix C - Table B C-14 Proposed Areas Analysis

Biogenic Habitat (continued)

Site Geographic Coral/Sponge/Penn Coral/Sponge Abundance (sum mean ID# Area Total Observations Presence (mi2) count) 44 Cordell Bank South Reopening 7 0.54 0.00 45 Rittenberg Bank 838 2.31 1264.24 46 Fanny Shoals Shelf Extension 3 0.77 12.96 47 Cochrane Bank 245 1.67 245.69 48 Farallon Escarpment to Pioneer Canyon Deep 96 2.63 108.04 49 Pioneer Canyon 10 0.39 2.00 50 Pioneer Canyonhead 1 0.00 0.00 51 Cabrillo Canyon 2 0.08 0.05 52 Pescadero Reef 0 0.00 0.00 53 Ascension Canyonhead 37 1.77 16.98 54 Lower portion of Ascension and Ano Nuevo canyons 266 2.21 53.68 55 Ano Nuevo Canyonhead 1 0.48 1.57 56 South of Davenport 55 2.69 53.98 57 Lower Portion of Cabrillo Canyon 2 0.39 0.00 58 SW of Smooth Ridge 20 0.18 6.91 59 Monterey Canyon Deep Expansion 1657 1.74 7.96 60 Outer Soquel Canyon 396 3.89 150.34 61 S of Mars Cable 0 0.06 0.14 62 W of Carmel Canyon 0 0.04 0.82 63 W of Sobranes Point 1 0.00 0.00 64 E of Sur Ridge 11 0.25 0.00 65 Triangle S of Surveyors Knoll 1 0.24 0.00 66 Sur Canyon Slot Canyons 1 0.00 0.38 67 Sur Platform Rocks 19 2.64 782.27 68 Between Partington Point and Lopez Point 68 0.52 4.59 69 La Cruz Canyon to Piedras Blancas 6 1.32 0.00 70 Pt. Buchon 10 1.93 0.00 71 East Santa Lucia Bank (Northwest Expansion) 53 1.99 0.00 72 East Santa Lucia Bank (Southeast Expansion) 19 0.00 0.00 73 Pt. Arguello 83 2.90 0.00 74 Southern CA Bight 10515 268.96 22944.25 75 Proposed EEZ Closure 1336 18.72 109.46 76 Monterey State Waters Reopenings 1748 0.36 77.27

Appendix C - Table B C-15 Proposed Areas Analysis

Biogenic Habitat (continued)

Site Geographic Pennatulid

ID# Area Presence (mi2) Abundance (sum mean count) 1 Olympic Footprint Modification 1.91 0.00 2 Olympic 1.94 4.00 3 Quinault Canyon 0.91 0.00 4 Copalis Inner Shelf 1.92 0.00 5 Grays Canyon 0.39 0.00 6 Astoria Footprint Modification 9.64 0.00 7 Willapa Canyonhead 0.96 0.00 8 Astoria Canyonhead 0.39 3.00 9 S. Nehalem Reef 4.50 4.00 10 Cascadia Shelf Hotspot 8.80 1.00 11 Siletz Hotspot 7.72 0.00 12 Hydrate Ridge/ Central OR Footrpint Modification 10.19 1.49 13 N. Daisy Bank 0.29 0.00 14 N. Stonewall Bank 0.63 0.00 15 Heceta Bank West 1.72 0.00 16 Heceta Bank 1.16 0.00 17 Cape Arago Reef 0.39 0.00 18 Rogue Canyonhead 0.00 0.00 19 S. Oregon Footrpint Modifcation 5.49 0.00 20 Crescent City Deepwater Hotspot 0.77 0.00 21 Point St. George Reef 0.00 0.00 22 Eureka Footprint Modification 5.30 0.00 23 Reading Rock Canyonheads 1.01 0.00 24 Samoa Deepwater 3.51 26.53 25 Samoa Reef 1.06 3.69 26 N. Eel River Canyon 0.93 1.37 27 S. Eel River Canyon 0.00 0.00 28 Blunt Reef Expansion 0.00 0.00 29 Mendocino Ridge Expansion 0.00 0.46 30 Spanish Canyon 0.05 0.00 31 Delgada Canyon Deep 4.94 0.00 32 Delgada Canyon Reopening 0.00 0.00 33 South Delgada Canyonheads 0.39 0.00 34 Noyo Canyonhead 0.39 0.97 35 Navarro Canyon 1.71 0.00 36 Pt. Arena Canyonheads 0.00 0.00 37 Saunders Reef 0.77 0.00 38 Pt. Arena Biogenic Reopening 0.79 0.00 39 Pt Arena Biogenic South Expansion 0.06 0.00 40 Russian River 0.26 0.00 41 Gobbler's Knob 0.15 0.00 42 Cordell Bank Expansion 3.29 34.22 43 Cordell Bank East Reopening 0.97 11.81

Appendix C - Table B C-16 Proposed Areas Analysis

Biogenic Habitat (continued)

Site Geographic Pennatulid

ID# Area Presence (mi2) Abundance (sum mean count) 44 Cordell Bank South Reopening 0.59 0.08 45 Rittenberg Bank 2.54 138.97 46 Fanny Shoals Shelf Extension 0.39 2.42 47 Cochrane Bank 1.08 44.17 48 Farallon Escarpment to Pioneer Canyon Deep 2.83 0.00 49 Pioneer Canyon 1.16 7.88 50 Pioneer Canyonhead 0.39 0.00 51 Cabrillo Canyon 0.00 0.00 52 Pescadero Reef 0.00 0.00 53 Ascension Canyonhead 0.00 2.25 54 Lower portion of Ascension and Ano Nuevo canyons 2.21 27.00 55 Ano Nuevo Canyonhead 0.30 1.45 56 South of Davenport 2.34 163.39 57 Lower Portion of Cabrillo Canyon 0.39 0.27 58 SW of Smooth Ridge 1.38 334.04 59 Monterey Canyon Deep Expansion 3.59 100.17 60 Outer Soquel Canyon 3.83 13.95 61 S of Mars Cable 0.06 0.98 62 W of Carmel Canyon 0.03 1.35 63 W of Sobranes Point 0.22 0.00 64 E of Sur Ridge 1.55 0.00 65 Triangle S of Surveyors Knoll 0.42 0.00 66 Sur Canyon Slot Canyons 0.43 0.01 67 Sur Platform Rocks 0.92 9.53 68 Between Partington Point and Lopez Point 2.90 29.91 69 La Cruz Canyon to Piedras Blancas 0.57 0.00 70 Pt. Buchon 1.53 0.00 71 East Santa Lucia Bank (Northwest Expansion) 2.10 20.50 72 East Santa Lucia Bank (Southeast Expansion) 1.41 16.00 73 Pt. Arguello 3.77 14.52 74 Southern CA Bight 87.89 3623.80 75 Proposed EEZ Closure 16.05 288.84 76 Monterey State Waters Reopenings 8.67 183.56

Appendix C - Table B C-17 Proposed Areas Analysis

Observer Bycatch Data Predicted Habitat Site Geographic Suitability Coral Sponge Sea Pens/Whips Area of High (4) ID# Area (mi2) Kg/Km towed (After) 1 Olympic Footprint Modification 42.31 57.88 19.25 0.04 2 Olympic 15.17 0.00 0.85 0.00 3 Quinault Canyon 163.87 56.47 182.60 0.88 4 Copalis Inner Shelf 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5 Grays Canyon 13.23 0.07 0.66 0.04 6 Astoria Footprint Modification 73.55 0.00 0.34 0.41 7 Willapa Canyonhead 10.04 0.06 2.25 0.01 8 Astoria Canyonhead 16.50 0.87 0.02 0.01 9 S. Nehalem Reef 0.00 0.01 1.06 0.00 10 Cascadia Shelf Hotspot 2.10 0.08 2219.24 5.35 11 Siletz Hotspot 5.08 7.64 1093.76 0.81 12 Hydrate Ridge/ Central OR Footrpint Modification 20.89 0.01 2.71 0.00 13 N. Daisy Bank 1.26 0.00 16.23 1.16 14 N. Stonewall Bank 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 15 Heceta Bank West 17.84 0.01 120.76 0.01 16 Heceta Bank 4.36 0.00 49.17 0.00 17 Cape Arago Reef 0.35 0.00 1.20 0.00 18 Rogue Canyonhead 3.44 0.01 6.33 0.00 19 S. Oregon Footrpint Modifcation 12.77 2.33 1.70 0.32 20 Crescent City Deepwater Hotspot 0.00 352.56 30.76 0.00 21 Point St. George Reef 5.18 0.82 0.00 0.00 22 Eureka Footprint Modification 5.69 0.36 7.39 0.00 23 Reading Rock Canyonheads 4.26 0.00 0.44 0.00 24 Samoa Deepwater 10.46 0.21 4.85 0.65 25 Samoa Reef 4.90 0.00 0.05 0.00 26 N. Eel River Canyon 15.58 5.45 114.58 0.07 27 S. Eel River Canyon 13.64 0.00 0.00 0.00 28 Blunt Reef Expansion 6.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 29 Mendocino Ridge Expansion 27.84 1.12 15.61 0.02 30 Spanish Canyon 10.47 0.00 5.91 0.00 31 Delgada Canyon Deep 9.61 0.00 0.00 0.00 32 Delgada Canyon Reopening 0.74 0.00 0.02 0.00 33 South Delgada Canyonheads 11.06 0.00 0.58 0.01 34 Noyo Canyonhead 5.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 35 Navarro Canyon 8.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 36 Pt. Arena Canyonheads 5.78 0.00 0.20 0.00 37 Saunders Reef 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 38 Pt. Arena Biogenic Reopening 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 39 Pt Arena Biogenic South Expansion 0.42 0.00 0.00 0.00 40 Russian River 0.33 0.00 0.46 0.00 41 Gobbler's Knob 5.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 42 Cordell Bank Expansion 17.10 0.00 0.00 0.07 43 Cordell Bank East Reopening 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Appendix C - Table B C-18 Proposed Areas Analysis

Observer Bycatch Data Predicted Habitat Site Geographic Suitability Coral Sponge Sea Pens/Whips Area of High (4) ID# Area (mi2) Kg/Km towed (After) 44 Cordell Bank South Reopening 5.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 45 Rittenberg Bank 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 46 Fanny Shoals Shelf Extension 2.57 0.00 0.00 0.00 47 Cochrane Bank 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 48 Farallon Escarpment to Pioneer Canyon Deep 136.82 0.00 0.00 0.00 49 Pioneer Canyon 7.85 0.00 0.34 0.00 50 Pioneer Canyonhead 1.89 0.00 0.00 0.00 51 Cabrillo Canyon 12.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 52 Pescadero Reef 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 53 Ascension Canyonhead 3.48 0.00 0.00 0.00 54 Lower portion of Ascension and Ano Nuevo canyons 19.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 55 Ano Nuevo Canyonhead 1.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 56 South of Davenport 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 57 Lower Portion of Cabrillo Canyon 17.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 58 SW of Smooth Ridge 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 59 Monterey Canyon Deep Expansion 7.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 60 Outer Soquel Canyon 3.92 0.00 0.00 0.00 61 S of Mars Cable 0.63 0.00 0.00 0.00 62 W of Carmel Canyon 9.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 63 W of Sobranes Point 6.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 64 E of Sur Ridge 1.73 0.00 0.00 0.00 65 Triangle S of Surveyors Knoll 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 66 Sur Canyon Slot Canyons 9.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 67 Sur Platform Rocks 0.36 0.00 0.00 0.00 68 Between Partington Point and Lopez Point 17.93 0.00 0.00 0.00 69 La Cruz Canyon to Piedras Blancas 17.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 70 Pt. Buchon 9.61 0.00 0.00 0.00 71 East Santa Lucia Bank (Northwest Expansion) 1.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 72 East Santa Lucia Bank (Southeast Expansion) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 73 Pt. Arguello 2.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 74 Southern CA Bight 2,005.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 75 Proposed EEZ Closure 9.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 76 Monterey State Waters Reopenings 5.39 0.00 0.00 0.00

Appendix C - Table B C-19 Proposed Areas Analysis

NWFSC Species Models

Site Geographic Darkblotched Rockfish Greenstriped Rockfish

ID# Area Occurrence Abundance Occurrence Abundance 1 Olympic Footprint Modification 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 Olympic 26.55 67.82 68.23 1034.65 3 Quinault Canyon 7.31 44.25 5.10 19.54 4 Copalis Inner Shelf 3.59 2.84 16.81 8.01 5 Grays Canyon 23.76 132.22 26.03 288.38 6 Astoria Footprint Modification 2.68 0.28 1.13 0.00 7 Willapa Canyonhead 15.29 153.36 17.50 156.91 8 Astoria Canyonhead 6.91 79.71 5.46 12.71 9 S. Nehalem Reef 34.05 70.35 43.35 306.04 10 Cascadia Shelf Hotspot 53.11 298.45 30.51 59.08 11 Siletz Hotspot 10.94 83.08 6.83 13.63 12 Hydrate Ridge/ Central OR Footrpint Modification 0.91 0.12 0.60 0.00 13 N. Daisy Bank 5.56 37.46 4.83 33.47 14 N. Stonewall Bank 6.89 4.54 16.77 196.15 15 Heceta Bank West 17.13 149.60 30.23 1118.06 16 Heceta Bank 39.25 81.06 116.06 1844.83 17 Cape Arago Reef 15.38 7.48 35.60 89.46 18 Rogue Canyonhead 6.67 15.54 9.73 74.27 19 S. Oregon Footrpint Modifcation 0.29 0.00 0.07 0.00 20 Crescent City Deepwater Hotspot 0.64 0.00 0.19 0.00 21 Point St. George Reef 7.28 39.91 6.74 33.05 22 Eureka Footprint Modification 0.31 0.00 0.07 0.00 23 Reading Rock Canyonheads 12.01 109.91 11.64 61.13 24 Samoa Deepwater 4.86 1.76 1.58 0.00 25 Samoa Reef 5.44 88.56 4.30 18.39 26 N. Eel River Canyon 2.18 8.30 1.42 3.24 27 S. Eel River Canyon 5.03 46.87 4.31 17.71 28 Blunt Reef Expansion 0.87 2.10 2.01 12.78 29 Mendocino Ridge Expansion 6.17 45.72 7.21 3.50 30 Spanish Canyon 5.97 60.57 7.80 33.13 31 Delgada Canyon Deep 0.05 0.00 0.02 0.00 32 Delgada Canyon Reopening 0.43 1.72 0.56 2.86 33 South Delgada Canyonheads 4.14 28.96 4.49 14.06 34 Noyo Canyonhead 1.32 7.46 1.40 2.40 35 Navarro Canyon 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.00 36 Pt. Arena Canyonheads 0.35 0.77 0.31 0.76 37 Saunders Reef 3.78 0.73 9.24 7.16 38 Pt. Arena Biogenic Reopening 9.55 11.38 15.30 32.32 39 Pt Arena Biogenic South Expansion 1.73 3.19 2.56 7.94 40 Russian River 6.17 17.78 7.88 14.03 41 Gobbler's Knob 4.13 12.12 5.72 9.66 42 Cordell Bank Expansion 5.13 6.09 13.94 55.71 43 Cordell Bank East Reopening 1.56 0.34 4.52 10.59

Appendix C - Table B C-20 Proposed Areas Analysis

NWFSC Species Models

Site Geographic Darkblotched Rockfish Greenstriped Rockfish

ID# Area Occurrence Abundance Occurrence Abundance 44 Cordell Bank South Reopening 1.73 1.39 4.03 19.18 45 Rittenberg Bank 0.95 0.04 4.97 13.18 46 Fanny Shoals Shelf Extension 1.03 0.02 6.40 9.60 47 Cochrane Bank 0.44 0.05 2.68 10.55 48 Farallon Escarpment to Pioneer Canyon Deep 1.11 0.62 1.74 8.26 49 Pioneer Canyon 0.04 0.00 0.03 0.00 50 Pioneer Canyonhead 1.04 0.34 4.28 13.21 51 Cabrillo Canyon 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 52 Pescadero Reef 0.14 0.00 1.45 0.93 53 Ascension Canyonhead 0.53 1.46 1.25 7.60 54 Lower portion of Ascension and Ano Nuevo canyons 0.25 0.42 0.33 0.27 55 Ano Nuevo Canyonhead 0.22 0.80 0.40 0.98 56 South of Davenport 0.19 0.01 1.64 2.43 57 Lower Portion of Cabrillo Canyon 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.00 58 SW of Smooth Ridge 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 59 Monterey Canyon Deep Expansion 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 60 Outer Soquel Canyon 0.36 0.33 0.93 6.93 61 S of Mars Cable 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 62 W of Carmel Canyon 0.13 0.06 0.13 0.00 63 W of Sobranes Point 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 64 E of Sur Ridge 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.00 65 Triangle S of Surveyors Knoll 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 66 Sur Canyon Slot Canyons 0.77 1.58 0.90 2.08 67 Sur Platform Rocks 0.26 0.02 2.08 4.42 68 Between Partington Point and Lopez Point 0.61 0.07 0.36 0.00 69 La Cruz Canyon to Piedras Blancas 4.01 8.65 8.04 33.83 70 Pt. Buchon 4.23 7.46 8.75 20.12 71 East Santa Lucia Bank (Northwest Expansion) 3.83 2.09 4.55 0.17 72 East Santa Lucia Bank (Southeast Expansion) 0.93 0.13 0.67 0.00 73 Pt. Arguello 8.10 10.81 18.55 24.93 74 Southern CA Bight 276.25 754.98 662.68 1438.06 75 Proposed EEZ Closure 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 76 Monterey State Waters Reopenings 0.13 0.01 1.46 0.28

Appendix C - Table B C-21 Proposed Areas Analysis

NWFSC Species Models (continued)

Site Geographic Longspine Thornyhead Petrale Sole

ID# Area Occurrence Abundance Occurrence Abundance 1 Olympic Footprint Modification 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 Olympic 3.27 1.75 96.61 449.52 3 Quinault Canyon 134.52 4857.96 4.13 7.87 4 Copalis Inner Shelf 0.43 0.00 265.80 622.52 5 Grays Canyon 1.57 3.97 26.78 64.53 6 Astoria Footprint Modification 238.60 9287.17 0.83 0.04 7 Willapa Canyonhead 1.19 2.17 19.19 57.70 8 Astoria Canyonhead 1.81 8.78 4.63 11.05 9 S. Nehalem Reef 1.26 0.11 50.81 167.55 10 Cascadia Shelf Hotspot 19.22 45.73 27.09 45.42 11 Siletz Hotspot 24.30 261.16 4.13 3.32 12 Hydrate Ridge/ Central OR Footrpint Modification 126.91 4405.21 0.41 0.02 13 N. Daisy Bank 2.57 5.67 3.48 6.64 14 N. Stonewall Bank 0.28 0.01 33.47 154.43 15 Heceta Bank West 3.14 7.18 27.87 81.88 16 Heceta Bank 4.19 26.54 186.33 829.02 17 Cape Arago Reef 0.43 0.01 75.87 297.60 18 Rogue Canyonhead 0.47 0.56 13.06 58.37 19 S. Oregon Footrpint Modifcation 83.25 5936.55 0.20 0.00 20 Crescent City Deepwater Hotspot 33.14 2087.29 0.17 0.00 21 Point St. George Reef 0.73 2.24 8.32 37.11 22 Eureka Footprint Modification 101.62 7577.39 0.18 0.00 23 Reading Rock Canyonheads 0.46 0.75 12.51 61.51 24 Samoa Deepwater 60.84 2246.77 1.49 0.44 25 Samoa Reef 1.78 11.03 3.88 14.63 26 N. Eel River Canyon 10.77 348.45 1.88 11.85 27 S. Eel River Canyon 2.92 58.73 4.44 30.33 28 Blunt Reef Expansion 0.39 7.55 5.27 38.86 29 Mendocino Ridge Expansion 44.36 1551.41 2.20 1.49 30 Spanish Canyon 0.92 1.60 9.89 75.67 31 Delgada Canyon Deep 44.79 1869.08 0.11 0.00 32 Delgada Canyon Reopening 0.13 0.61 0.76 4.04 33 South Delgada Canyonheads 0.90 3.99 5.16 17.62 34 Noyo Canyonhead 0.70 4.49 1.89 8.21 35 Navarro Canyon 15.87 690.01 0.10 0.01 36 Pt. Arena Canyonheads 2.78 26.92 1.03 5.93 37 Saunders Reef 0.06 0.00 20.83 120.56 38 Pt. Arena Biogenic Reopening 0.20 0.01 22.94 129.51 39 Pt Arena Biogenic South Expansion 0.09 0.06 3.55 18.76 40 Russian River 0.29 0.13 9.47 49.49 41 Gobbler's Knob 1.23 2.50 6.01 28.74 42 Cordell Bank Expansion 5.33 105.18 18.11 60.02 43 Cordell Bank East Reopening 0.04 0.00 7.74 64.37

Appendix C - Table B C-22 Proposed Areas Analysis

NWFSC Species Models (continued)

Site Geographic Longspine Thornyhead Petrale Sole

ID# Area Occurrence Abundance Occurrence Abundance 44 Cordell Bank South Reopening 0.37 1.99 5.73 42.04 45 Rittenberg Bank 0.03 0.00 10.46 86.64 46 Fanny Shoals Shelf Extension 0.04 0.00 5.08 5.18 47 Cochrane Bank 0.03 0.03 1.88 2.62 48 Farallon Escarpment to Pioneer Canyon Deep 102.13 3217.86 104.28 490.51 49 Pioneer Canyon 8.32 322.16 0.18 0.03 50 Pioneer Canyonhead 0.03 0.00 8.08 47.62 51 Cabrillo Canyon 18.36 850.01 0.10 0.00 52 Pescadero Reef 0.01 0.00 4.34 18.03 53 Ascension Canyonhead 0.25 2.09 1.64 8.75 54 Lower portion of Ascension and Ano Nuevo canyons 10.75 296.63 0.65 1.01 55 Ano Nuevo Canyonhead 0.08 0.09 0.47 1.88 56 South of Davenport 0.01 0.00 3.87 24.33 57 Lower Portion of Cabrillo Canyon 10.82 291.29 0.16 0.05 58 SW of Smooth Ridge 0.43 11.83 0.00 0.00 59 Monterey Canyon Deep Expansion 4.75 114.33 4.22 22.94 60 Outer Soquel Canyon 1.89 22.21 1.17 6.36 61 S of Mars Cable 0.60 14.73 0.00 0.00 62 W of Carmel Canyon 5.44 136.00 0.24 0.18 63 W of Sobranes Point 15.63 616.73 0.10 0.01 64 E of Sur Ridge 17.57 595.49 0.16 0.01 65 Triangle S of Surveyors Knoll 6.02 198.38 0.04 0.00 66 Sur Canyon Slot Canyons 26.31 626.56 1.45 2.34 67 Sur Platform Rocks 0.03 0.00 6.81 45.76 68 Between Partington Point and Lopez Point 45.89 1248.17 1.09 0.36 69 La Cruz Canyon to Piedras Blancas 0.97 1.75 18.18 74.57 70 Pt. Buchon 0.34 0.09 22.96 79.38 71 East Santa Lucia Bank (Northwest Expansion) 55.28 675.89 5.73 2.84 72 East Santa Lucia Bank (Southeast Expansion) 30.43 475.07 1.73 0.78 73 Pt. Arguello 0.79 0.30 36.27 155.16 74 Southern CA Bight 7191.95 102956.84 586.58 1398.79 75 Proposed EEZ Closure 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 76 Monterey State Waters Reopenings 0.02 0.00 1.10 0.55

Appendix C - Table B C-23 Proposed Areas Analysis

NWFSC Species Models (continued)

Site Geographic Sablefish Yelloweye Rockfish

ID# Area Occurrence Abundance Occurrence Abundance 1 Olympic Footprint Modification 0.00 0.00 0.00 DATA 2 Olympic 47.72 362.07 30.30 N/A 3 Quinault Canyon 137.74 1375.67 0.77 4 Copalis Inner Shelf 27.22 18.80 11.14 5 Grays Canyon 30.67 225.97 2.72 6 Astoria Footprint Modification 233.03 1795.95 1.75 7 Willapa Canyonhead 20.90 199.45 3.92 8 Astoria Canyonhead 10.93 182.19 0.30 9 S. Nehalem Reef 50.98 226.64 6.19 10 Cascadia Shelf Hotspot 90.88 1148.67 1.52 11 Siletz Hotspot 35.24 342.03 1.07 12 Hydrate Ridge/ Central OR Footrpint Modification 122.64 936.30 1.48 13 N. Daisy Bank 10.51 141.38 0.91 14 N. Stonewall Bank 13.54 89.69 7.83 15 Heceta Bank West 30.47 300.72 18.07 16 Heceta Bank 88.06 407.45 63.28 17 Cape Arago Reef 31.70 89.62 8.38 18 Rogue Canyonhead 10.57 116.17 2.53 19 S. Oregon Footrpint Modifcation 81.38 770.25 0.47 20 Crescent City Deepwater Hotspot 32.96 374.91 0.20 21 Point St. George Reef 11.68 100.28 0.63 22 Eureka Footprint Modification 100.84 1143.43 0.21 23 Reading Rock Canyonheads 16.94 161.27 0.66 24 Samoa Deepwater 63.33 911.75 1.15 25 Samoa Reef 9.34 141.26 0.50 26 N. Eel River Canyon 13.99 171.99 0.14 27 S. Eel River Canyon 10.34 115.12 0.24 28 Blunt Reef Expansion 1.85 9.46 0.94 29 Mendocino Ridge Expansion 44.83 531.30 6.29 30 Spanish Canyon 9.17 91.41 0.84 31 Delgada Canyon Deep 40.68 256.79 0.08 32 Delgada Canyon Reopening 0.74 7.28 0.05 33 South Delgada Canyonheads 7.05 71.06 0.44 34 Noyo Canyonhead 2.93 22.22 0.14 35 Navarro Canyon 15.38 131.24 0.01 36 Pt. Arena Canyonheads 2.62 18.53 0.05 37 Saunders Reef 7.72 14.86 0.74 38 Pt. Arena Biogenic Reopening 14.64 49.18 1.06 39 Pt Arena Biogenic South Expansion 2.60 10.27 0.21 40 Russian River 9.81 50.02 0.53 41 Gobbler's Knob 9.43 71.18 0.46 42 Cordell Bank Expansion 36.58 229.92 1.44 43 Cordell Bank East Reopening 4.16 7.98 0.25

Appendix C - Table B C-24 Proposed Areas Analysis

NWFSC Species Models (continued)

Site Geographic Sablefish Yelloweye Rockfish

ID# Area Occurrence Abundance Occurrence Abundance 44 Cordell Bank South Reopening 4.76 17.78 0.23 45 Rittenberg Bank 3.63 4.94 0.47 46 Fanny Shoals Shelf Extension 16.46 121.41 0.54 47 Cochrane Bank 5.53 38.32 0.38 48 Farallon Escarpment to Pioneer Canyon Deep 3.09 8.85 0.11 49 Pioneer Canyon 8.32 81.98 0.01 50 Pioneer Canyonhead 4.59 25.39 0.21 51 Cabrillo Canyon 17.17 69.82 0.02 52 Pescadero Reef 1.00 0.84 0.15 53 Ascension Canyonhead 1.73 10.47 0.06 54 Lower portion of Ascension and Ano Nuevo canyons 11.14 73.60 0.05 55 Ano Nuevo Canyonhead 0.81 6.01 0.02 56 South of Davenport 0.73 0.92 0.58 57 Lower Portion of Cabrillo Canyon 10.04 57.12 0.02 58 SW of Smooth Ridge 0.40 1.74 0.00 59 Monterey Canyon Deep Expansion 0.05 0.01 0.02 60 Outer Soquel Canyon 2.82 18.56 0.71 61 S of Mars Cable 0.54 2.59 0.00 62 W of Carmel Canyon 5.24 74.05 0.25 63 W of Sobranes Point 14.41 123.80 0.12 64 E of Sur Ridge 16.27 142.22 0.17 65 Triangle S of Surveyors Knoll 5.49 42.82 0.03 66 Sur Canyon Slot Canyons 25.90 405.50 0.25 67 Sur Platform Rocks 0.64 1.69 1.10 68 Between Partington Point and Lopez Point 44.94 702.45 0.17 69 La Cruz Canyon to Piedras Blancas 10.49 88.30 0.66 70 Pt. Buchon 15.35 53.01 0.47 71 East Santa Lucia Bank (Northwest Expansion) 67.04 579.42 1.79 72 East Santa Lucia Bank (Southeast Expansion) 32.87 303.86 0.27 73 Pt. Arguello 33.92 107.74 0.77 74 Southern CA Bight 4540.42 26268.44 87.31 75 Proposed EEZ Closure 0.00 0.00 0.00 76 Monterey State Waters Reopenings 21.12 74.63 4.40

Appendix C - Table B C-25 Proposed Areas Analysis

Fishing Effort

Site Geographic Trawl Tracks (2000-2005) Bottom Trawl Effort

ID# Area (miles trawled) Intensity - Before 1 Olympic Footprint Modification 105.52 15,075.48 2 Olympic 1,639.01 519,908.90 3 Quinault Canyon 855.83 64,327.22 4 Copalis Inner Shelf 169.22 9,857.97 5 Grays Canyon 734.92 32,275.84 6 Astoria Footprint Modification 1,896.82 186,951.50 7 Willapa Canyonhead 1,027.45 91,236.41 8 Astoria Canyonhead 914.87 69,541.52 9 S. Nehalem Reef 331.30 17,844.02 10 Cascadia Shelf Hotspot 5,475.18 246,837.10 11 Siletz Hotspot 965.04 112,708.30 12 Hydrate Ridge/ Central OR Footrpint Modification 2,420.55 178,615.80 13 N. Daisy Bank 325.89 7,824.82 14 N. Stonewall Bank 299.49 17,034.47 15 Heceta Bank West 2,089.51 124,835.00 16 Heceta Bank 1,354.08 88,358.90 17 Cape Arago Reef 77.85 2,288.79 18 Rogue Canyonhead 230.65 17,261.70 19 S. Oregon Footrpint Modifcation 732.99 76,281.84 20 Crescent City Deepwater Hotspot 1,881.72 183,797.60 21 Point St. George Reef 739.09 57,176.20 22 Eureka Footprint Modification 643.24 42,298.84 23 Reading Rock Canyonheads 1,725.33 82,005.20 24 Samoa Deepwater 2,791.82 175,955.30 25 Samoa Reef 1,666.34 130,458.70 26 N. Eel River Canyon 857.83 81,518.32 27 S. Eel River Canyon 466.32 26,981.69 28 Blunt Reef Expansion 181.21 10,831.48 29 Mendocino Ridge Expansion 1,437.58 117,867.50 30 Spanish Canyon 510.11 44,572.00 31 Delgada Canyon Deep 109.06 18,576.65 32 Delgada Canyon Reopening 47.81 4,030.42 33 South Delgada Canyonheads 1,380.55 125,022.50 34 Noyo Canyonhead 84.18 4,581.52 35 Navarro Canyon 21.14 2,256.85 36 Pt. Arena Canyonheads 666.96 30,999.36 37 Saunders Reef 49.20 4.52 38 Pt. Arena Biogenic Reopening 158.78 7,256.25 39 Pt Arena Biogenic South Expansion 42.48 2,642.73 40 Russian River 239.57 22,536.93 41 Gobbler's Knob 261.92 18,573.20 42 Cordell Bank Expansion 683.65 63,427.10 43 Cordell Bank East Reopening 45.48 3,265.15

Appendix C - Table B C-26 Proposed Areas Analysis

Fishing Effort

Site Geographic Trawl Tracks (2000-2005) Bottom Trawl Effort

ID# Area (miles trawled) Intensity - Before 44 Cordell Bank South Reopening 443.64 8,803.72 45 Rittenberg Bank 85.74 13,040.27 46 Fanny Shoals Shelf Extension 51.99 3,659.29 47 Cochrane Bank 66.00 4,758.85 48 Farallon Escarpment to Pioneer Canyon Deep 118.31 11,927.04 49 Pioneer Canyon 146.82 19,058.69 50 Pioneer Canyonhead 68.91 5,417.14 51 Cabrillo Canyon 45.60 1,796.57 52 Pescadero Reef 9.60 1,107.38 53 Ascension Canyonhead 16.64 3,436.58 54 Lower portion of Ascension and Ano Nuevo canyons 24.91 5,572.29 55 Ano Nuevo Canyonhead 17.16 2,141.49 56 South of Davenport 2.24 2,559.98 57 Lower Portion of Cabrillo Canyon 243.70 16,798.52 58 SW of Smooth Ridge 1.65 234.46 59 Monterey Canyon Deep Expansion 191.06 20,868.16 60 Outer Soquel Canyon 80.76 19,312.52 61 S of Mars Cable 7.42 1,148.81 62 W of Carmel Canyon 78.39 7,445.12 63 W of Sobranes Point 38.60 4,406.61 64 E of Sur Ridge 163.12 23,856.32 65 Triangle S of Surveyors Knoll 0.53 1.05 66 Sur Canyon Slot Canyons 136.47 8,432.32 67 Sur Platform Rocks 34.58 5,426.93 68 Between Partington Point and Lopez Point 299.65 39,837.53 69 La Cruz Canyon to Piedras Blancas 27.27 0.00 70 Pt. Buchon 17.15 1,117.43 71 East Santa Lucia Bank (Northwest Expansion) 195.90 27,767.15 72 East Santa Lucia Bank (Southeast Expansion) 172.22 35,049.71 73 Pt. Arguello 257.20 5.83 74 Southern CA Bight 1,187.56 33,847.07 75 Proposed EEZ Closure 203.46 0.00 76 Monterey State Waters Reopenings 14,984.39 1,674,941.00

Appendix C - Table B C-27 Proposed Areas Analysis

Fishing Effort (continued)

Site Geographic Bottom Trawl Effort Trawl Effort

ID# Area Intensity - After % per region (After) 1 Olympic Footprint Modification 30,808.54 0.12% 2 Olympic 54,522.96 0.22% 3 Quinault Canyon 260,665.80 1.05% 4 Copalis Inner Shelf 4,767.60 0.02% 5 Grays Canyon 23,144.45 0.09% 6 Astoria Footprint Modification 33,005.75 0.07% 7 Willapa Canyonhead 106,830.30 0.23% 8 Astoria Canyonhead 126,954.90 0.28% 9 S. Nehalem Reef 8,255.38 0.02% 10 Cascadia Shelf Hotspot 241,934.10 0.53% 11 Siletz Hotspot 311,112.20 0.68% 12 Hydrate Ridge/ Central OR Footrpint Modification 6,832.52 0.01% 13 N. Daisy Bank 20,281.52 0.04% 14 N. Stonewall Bank 12,185.66 0.03% 15 Heceta Bank West 189,382.80 0.41% 16 Heceta Bank 47,359.69 0.10% 17 Cape Arago Reef 1,716.68 0.00% 18 Rogue Canyonhead 5,998.17 0.01% 19 S. Oregon Footrpint Modifcation 15,664.43 0.03% 20 Crescent City Deepwater Hotspot 102,292.40 0.28% 21 Point St. George Reef 64,556.23 0.17% 22 Eureka Footprint Modification 28,293.85 0.08% 23 Reading Rock Canyonheads 58,183.58 0.16% 24 Samoa Deepwater 442,608.80 1.20% 25 Samoa Reef 158,932.40 0.43% 26 N. Eel River Canyon 136,879.00 0.37% 27 S. Eel River Canyon 9,611.42 0.03% 28 Blunt Reef Expansion 1,931.97 0.01% 29 Mendocino Ridge Expansion 125,363.00 0.34% 30 Spanish Canyon 19,891.87 0.05% 31 Delgada Canyon Deep 9,947.36 0.03% 32 Delgada Canyon Reopening 1,844.67 0.00% 33 South Delgada Canyonheads 92,982.34 0.25% 34 Noyo Canyonhead 8,857.05 0.02% 35 Navarro Canyon 672.86 0.00% 36 Pt. Arena Canyonheads 46,769.39 0.13% 37 Saunders Reef 202.53 0.00% 38 Pt. Arena Biogenic Reopening 501.77 0.00% 39 Pt Arena Biogenic South Expansion 460.53 0.00% 40 Russian River 12,949.94 0.04% 41 Gobbler's Knob 17,291.47 0.05% 42 Cordell Bank Expansion 57,716.89 0.16% 43 Cordell Bank East Reopening 3,261.17 0.01%

Appendix C - Table B C-28 Proposed Areas Analysis

Fishing Effort (continued)

Site Geographic Bottom Trawl Effort Trawl Effort

ID# Area Intensity - After % per region (After) 44 Cordell Bank South Reopening 9,330.04 0.03% 45 Rittenberg Bank 3,892.19 0.01% 46 Fanny Shoals Shelf Extension 7,254.50 0.02% 47 Cochrane Bank 8,365.37 0.02% 48 Farallon Escarpment to Pioneer Canyon Deep 28,269.73 0.08% 49 Pioneer Canyon 1,753.81 0.00% 50 Pioneer Canyonhead 8,053.50 0.02% 51 Cabrillo Canyon 1,957.40 0.01% 52 Pescadero Reef 420.11 0.00% 53 Ascension Canyonhead 2,632.38 0.01% 54 Lower portion of Ascension and Ano Nuevo canyons 1,473.57 0.00% 55 Ano Nuevo Canyonhead 2,121.96 0.01% 56 South of Davenport 280.85 0.00% 57 Lower Portion of Cabrillo Canyon 378.63 0.00% 58 SW of Smooth Ridge 0.00 0.00% 59 Monterey Canyon Deep Expansion 6,116.64 0.02% 60 Outer Soquel Canyon 495.34 0.00% 61 S of Mars Cable 0.00 0.00% 62 W of Carmel Canyon 9,537.87 0.03% 63 W of Sobranes Point 1,648.88 0.00% 64 E of Sur Ridge 5,265.85 0.01% 65 Triangle S of Surveyors Knoll 0.00 0.00% 66 Sur Canyon Slot Canyons 67.18 0.00% 67 Sur Platform Rocks 0.00 0.00% 68 Between Partington Point and Lopez Point 543.83 0.00% 69 La Cruz Canyon to Piedras Blancas 0.00 0.00% 70 Pt. Buchon 496.28 0.00% 71 East Santa Lucia Bank (Northwest Expansion) 0.00 0.00% 72 East Santa Lucia Bank (Southeast Expansion) 0.00 0.00% 73 Pt. Arguello 0.00 0.00% 74 Southern CA Bight 22,668.62 0.06% 75 Proposed EEZ Closure 0.00 0.00% 76 Monterey State Waters Reopenings 352,841.80 0.95%

Appendix C - Table B C-29 Proposed Areas Analysis

Fishing Effort (continued) OR Shrimp OR Shrimp Trawl Site Geographic Trawl Effort Effort OR Shrimp Trawl Effort Intensity - ID# Area Before Intensity - After % per region (After) 1 Olympic Footprint Modification 0.000000 0.000000 0.00000% 2 Olympic 0.000000 0.000009 0.00382% 3 Quinault Canyon 0.000182 0.000041 0.01738% 4 Copalis Inner Shelf 0.000652 0.000000 0.00000% 5 Grays Canyon 0.001565 0.000608 0.25777% 6 Astoria Footprint Modification 0.000000 0.000000 0.00000% 7 Willapa Canyonhead 0.000516 0.000462 0.02439% 8 Astoria Canyonhead 0.000012 0.000000 0.00000% 9 S. Nehalem Reef 0.066464 0.012018 0.63447% 10 Cascadia Shelf Hotspot 0.019136 0.006406 0.33820% 11 Siletz Hotspot 0.000000 0.000000 0.00000% 12 Hydrate Ridge/ Central OR Footrpint Modification 0.000000 0.000000 0.00000% 13 N. Daisy Bank 0.000270 0.000004 0.00021% 14 N. Stonewall Bank 0.000148 0.001053 0.05559% 15 Heceta Bank West 0.000000 0.000000 0.00000% 16 Heceta Bank 0.000172 0.000153 0.00808% 17 Cape Arago Reef 0.001589 0.001460 0.07708% 18 Rogue Canyonhead 0.000013 0.000551 0.02909% 19 S. Oregon Footrpint Modifcation 0.000000 0.000000 0.00000% 20 Crescent City Deepwater Hotspot 0.000000 0.000000 0.00000% 21 Point St. George Reef 0.000041 0.001798 1.98720% 22 Eureka Footprint Modification 0.000000 0.000000 0.00000% 23 Reading Rock Canyonheads 0.000000 0.000843 0.93171% 24 Samoa Deepwater 0.000000 0.000000 0.00000% 25 Samoa Reef 0.000000 0.000000 0.00000% 26 N. Eel River Canyon 0.000000 0.000000 0.00000% 27 S. Eel River Canyon 0.000000 0.000000 0.00000% 28 Blunt Reef Expansion 0.000000 0.000000 0.00000% 29 Mendocino Ridge Expansion 0.000000 0.000000 0.00000% 30 Spanish Canyon 0.000037 0.000000 0.00000% 31 Delgada Canyon Deep 0.000000 0.000000 0.00000% 32 Delgada Canyon Reopening 0.001081 0.000000 0.00000% 33 South Delgada Canyonheads 0.000062 0.000000 0.00000% 34 Noyo Canyonhead 0.000000 0.000000 0.00000% 35 Navarro Canyon 0.000000 0.000000 0.00000% 36 Pt. Arena Canyonheads 0.000000 0.000000 0.00000% 37 Saunders Reef 0.000000 0.000000 0.00000% 38 Pt. Arena Biogenic Reopening 0.000000 0.000000 0.00000% 39 Pt Arena Biogenic South Expansion 0.000000 0.000000 0.00000% 40 Russian River 0.000000 0.000000 0.00000% 41 Gobbler's Knob 0.000000 0.000000 0.00000% 42 Cordell Bank Expansion 0.000000 0.000000 0.00000% 43 Cordell Bank East Reopening 0.000000 0.000000 0.00000%

Appendix C - Table B C-30 Proposed Areas Analysis

Fishing Effort (continued) OR Shrimp OR Shrimp Trawl Site Geographic Trawl Effort Effort OR Shrimp Trawl Effort Intensity - ID# Area Before Intensity - After % per region (After) 44 Cordell Bank South Reopening 0.000000 0.000000 0.00000% 45 Rittenberg Bank 0.000000 0.000000 0.00000% 46 Fanny Shoals Shelf Extension 0.000000 0.000000 0.00000% 47 Cochrane Bank 0.000000 0.000000 0.00000% 48 Farallon Escarpment to Pioneer Canyon Deep 0.000000 0.000000 0.00000% 49 Pioneer Canyon 0.000000 0.000000 0.00000% 50 Pioneer Canyonhead 0.000000 0.000000 0.00000% 51 Cabrillo Canyon 0.000000 0.000000 0.00000% 52 Pescadero Reef 0.000000 0.000000 0.00000% 53 Ascension Canyonhead 0.000000 0.000000 0.00000% 54 Lower portion of Ascension and Ano Nuevo canyons 0.000000 0.000000 0.00000% 55 Ano Nuevo Canyonhead 0.000000 0.000000 0.00000% 56 South of Davenport 0.000000 0.000000 0.00000% 57 Lower Portion of Cabrillo Canyon 0.000000 0.000000 0.00000% 58 SW of Smooth Ridge 0.000000 0.000000 0.00000% 59 Monterey Canyon Deep Expansion 0.000000 0.000000 0.00000% 60 Outer Soquel Canyon 0.000000 0.000000 0.00000% 61 S of Mars Cable 0.000000 0.000000 0.00000% 62 W of Carmel Canyon 0.000000 0.000000 0.00000% 63 W of Sobranes Point 0.000000 0.000000 0.00000% 64 E of Sur Ridge 0.000000 0.000000 0.00000% 65 Triangle S of Surveyors Knoll 0.000000 0.000000 0.00000% 66 Sur Canyon Slot Canyons 0.000000 0.000000 0.00000% 67 Sur Platform Rocks 0.000000 0.000000 0.00000% 68 Between Partington Point and Lopez Point 0.000000 0.000000 0.00000% 69 La Cruz Canyon to Piedras Blancas 0.000000 0.000000 0.00000% 70 Pt. Buchon 0.000000 0.000000 0.00000% 71 East Santa Lucia Bank (Northwest Expansion) 0.000000 0.000000 0.00000% 72 East Santa Lucia Bank (Southeast Expansion) 0.000000 0.000000 0.00000% 73 Pt. Arguello 0.000000 0.000000 0.00000% 74 Southern CA Bight 0.000000 0.000000 0.00000% 75 Proposed EEZ Closure 0.000000 0.000000 0.00000% 76 Monterey State Waters Reopenings 0.00 0.00 0.00

Appendix C - Table B C-31 Proposed Areas Combined with Existing Closures Analysis

Substrate Geographic Area Hard Substrate Mixed Substrate Soft Substrate

Area (mi2) (mi2) (mi2) (mi2) Northern - Upper Slope 11,642.03 79.55 406.86 10,858.68 Inside 2,632.36 57.18 159.84 2,351.64 Outside 9,009.67 22.37 247.02 8,507.03 Northern - Shelf 13,121.64 645.06 375.39 6,266.68 Inside 3,384.72 515.06 320.99 2,460.76 Outside 9,736.92 130.00 54.40 3,805.92 Northern - Lower Slope 93,376.95 98.54 0.00 10,125.62 Inside 93,363.60 98.54 0.00 10,123.09 Outside 13.35 0.00 0.00 2.52 Central - Upper Slope 9,217.14 1,031.80 12.26 8,128.91 Inside 3,133.37 676.59 11.25 2,410.19 Outside 6,083.77 355.21 1.01 5,718.73 Central - Shelf 6,614.63 400.05 19.68 5,672.25 Inside 2,881.92 375.73 18.22 2,480.03 Outside 3,732.72 24.32 1.46 3,192.22 Central - Lower Slope 97,508.04 551.77 0.00 10,343.47 Inside 97,502.83 551.49 0.00 932.07 Outside 5.21 0.28 0.00 9,411.40 Southern - Upper Slope 18,049.06 935.10 71.70 17,009.03 Inside 17,850.08 932.07 71.70 16,813.35 Outside 198.97 3.03 0.00 195.68 Southern - Shelf 2,996.54 200.34 61.04 2,672.56 Inside 2,455.08 182.06 57.36 2,189.92 Outside 541.47 18.28 3.68 482.64 Southern - Lower Slope 62,438.79 2,235.32 0.00 8,186.46 Inside 62,438.77 2,235.32 0.00 8,186.44 Outside 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.02 Olympic Coast NMS 3,185.64 79.26 323.32 2,779.30 Inside 1,131.81 72.80 261.15 796.68 Outside 2,053.84 6.45 62.18 1,982.62 Gulf of the Farallones NMS 1,278.55 71.10 6.62 1,199.97 Inside 576.78 71.07 6.62 498.94 Outside 701.78 0.03 0.00 701.03 Cordell Bank NMS 528.61 16.76 11.87 499.97 Inside 203.33 4.84 10.90 187.59 Outside 325.28 11.93 0.97 312.38 Monterey Bay NMS 6,092.21 403.82 2.04 5,298.89 Inside 3,710.26 385.51 2.04 2,936.85 Outside 2,381.94 18.31 0.00 2,362.04 Channel Islands NMS 1,469.76 92.39 26.15 1,346.40 Inside 1,469.71 92.39 26.15 1,346.35 Outside 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.05

Appendix C - Table C C-32 Proposed Areas Combined with Existing Closures Analysis

Substrate Geographic Area Hard Substrate Mixed Substrate Soft Substrate

Area (mi2) (mi2) (mi2) (mi2) EEZ 317,958.52 6,237.56 975.70 80,096.04 Inside 288,057.61 5,683.41 656.95 57,946.94 Outside 29,900.91 554.15 318.75 22,149.09 Washington 26,219.50 160.01 332.04 12,358.88 Inside 20,910.03 138.94 269.28 7,470.59 Outside 5,309.48 21.07 62.76 4,888.29 Oregon 70,412.85 592.97 475.50 9,798.33 Inside 59,542.36 461.78 227.64 5,129.39 Outside 10,870.48 131.20 247.86 4,668.94 California 221,096.60 5,484.58 168.15 57,939.29 Inside 207,518.10 5,082.70 160.03 45,347.08 Outside 13,578.49 401.88 8.13 12,592.21

Appendix C - Table C C-33 Proposed Areas Combined with Existing Closures Analysis

Biogenic Habitat Geographic Coral Sponge Pennatulid

Area # Observations # Observations # Observations Northern - Upper Slope 18,573.00 1,676.00 2,802.00 Inside 18,010.00 455.00 1,054.00 Outside 563.00 1,221.00 1,748.00 Northern - Shelf 7,417.00 3,272.00 666.00 Inside 7,328.00 3,025.00 48.00 Outside 89.00 247.00 618.00 Northern - Lower Slope 246.00 10.00 1,243.00 Inside 246.00 10.00 1,243.00 Outside 0.00 0.00 0.00 Central - Upper Slope 5,591.00 426.00 21,151.00 Inside 4,385.00 288.00 4,899.00 Outside 1,206.00 138.00 16,252.00 Central - Shelf 13,911.00 1,423.00 18,160.00 Inside 12,668.00 1,382.00 8,836.00 Outside 1,243.00 41.00 9,324.00 Central - Lower Slope 37,398.00 0.00 10,771.00 Inside 37,398.00 0.00 10,771.00 Outside 0.00 0.00 0.00 Southern - Upper Slope 3,160.00 5,996.00 1,323.00 Inside 3,153.00 5,989.00 1,212.00 Outside 7.00 7.00 111.00 Southern - Shelf 2,150.00 171.00 275.00 Inside 1,938.00 138.00 224.00 Outside 212.00 33.00 51.00 Southern - Lower Slope 13,820.00 10.00 873.00 Inside 13,820.00 10.00 873.00 Outside 0.00 0.00 0.00 Olympic Coast NMS 22,529.00 145.00 132.00 Inside 22,446.00 64.00 11.00 Outside 83.00 81.00 121.00 Gulf of the Farallones NMS 164.00 1,000.00 192.00 Inside 160.00 1,000.00 81.00 Outside 4.00 0.00 111.00 Cordell Bank NMS 1,375.00 8.00 3,581.00 Inside 291.00 5.00 693.00 Outside 1,084.00 3.00 2,888.00 Monterey Bay NMS 38,862.00 626.00 41,246.00 Inside 37,578.00 568.00 19,518.00 Outside 1,284.00 58.00 21,728.00 Channel Islands NMS 2,517.00 5,313.00 686.00 Inside 2,517.00 5,313.00 686.00 Outside 0.00 0.00 0.00

Appendix C - Table C C-34 Proposed Areas Combined with Existing Closures Analysis

Biogenic Habitat Geographic Coral Sponge Pennatulid

Area # Observations # Observations # Observations EEZ 102,289.00 12,988.00 57,297.00 Inside 98,966.00 11,301.00 29,187.00 Outside 3,323.00 1,687.00 28,110.00 Washington 22,861.00 3,427.00 686.00 Inside 22,700.00 3,148.00 265.00 Outside 161.00 279.00 421.00 Oregon 1,121.00 1,368.00 2,543.00 Inside 716.00 307.00 757.00 Outside 405.00 1,061.00 1,786.00 California 78,307.00 8,193.00 54,068.00 Inside 75,550.00 7,846.00 28,165.00 Outside 2,757.00 347.00 25,903.00

Appendix C - Table C C-35 Proposed Areas Combined with Existing Closures Analysis

Biogenic Habitat (continued) Geographic Coral/Sponge Pennatulid Abundance (sum Abundance (sum mean Area Presence (mi2) mean count) Presence (mi2) count) Northern - Upper Slope 557.99 5,121.90 407.76 362.55 Inside 143.04 5,000.57 91.57 43.87 Outside 414.95 121.33 316.19 318.68 Northern - Shelf 163.97 6,842.14 226.80 18.87 Inside 65.96 6,519.05 16.37 10.27 Outside 98.01 323.09 210.44 8.59 Northern - Lower Slope 33.49 129.17 56.77 550.43 Inside 33.49 129.17 56.72 550.43 Outside 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 Central - Upper Slope 153.56 1,604.78 255.72 2,658.82 Inside 69.49 1,393.55 99.71 1,610.93 Outside 84.07 211.23 156.02 1,047.89 Central - Shelf 150.85 12,181.47 282.35 6,912.34 Inside 112.07 10,964.77 141.54 3,875.70 Outside 38.78 1,216.70 140.81 3,036.64 Central - Lower Slope 91.97 13,365.65 106.36 2,865.12 Inside 91.97 13,365.63 106.36 2,864.99 Outside 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.14 Southern - Upper Slope 269.24 28,595.34 99.88 5,137.27 Inside 265.15 24,848.98 92.98 5,055.06 Outside 4.09 3,746.36 6.91 82.21 Southern - Shelf 124.78 16,291.73 57.86 1,320.78 Inside 105.87 11,128.62 40.70 1,311.33 Outside 18.91 5,163.12 17.16 9.45 Southern - Lower Slope 30.00 5,334.55 16.61 560.33 Inside 30.00 5,334.55 16.61 560.33 Outside 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Olympic Coast NMS 67.09 8,394.25 35.98 20.00 Inside 32.05 8,247.24 3.91 5.00 Outside 35.05 147.01 32.07 15.00 Gulf of the Farallones NMS 9.85 1,872.67 23.79 258.49 Inside 8.90 1,665.00 9.43 194.70 Outside 0.95 207.67 14.37 63.79 Cordell Bank NMS 24.29 432.55 62.23 1,524.96 Inside 9.14 158.36 17.28 295.78 Outside 15.16 274.19 44.95 1,229.18 Monterey Bay NMS 225.41 18,954.66 294.64 9,140.13 Inside 174.88 18,143.68 188.61 6,562.06 Outside 50.53 810.99 106.03 2,578.07 Channel Islands NMS 44.20 19,325.91 28.92 2,092.52 Inside 44.20 19,325.91 28.92 2,092.52 Outside 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Appendix C - Table C C-36 Proposed Areas Combined with Existing Closures Analysis

Biogenic Habitat (continued) Geographic Coral/Sponge Pennatulid Abundance (sum Abundance (sum mean Area Presence (mi2) mean count) Presence (mi2) count) EEZ 1,582.04 89,467.68 1,519.92 20,386.66 Inside 922.07 78,685.15 670.42 15,882.95 Outside 659.97 10,782.54 849.50 4,503.71 Washington 213.01 10,343.50 168.77 24.00 Inside 100.22 10,192.71 53.98 6.61 Outside 112.79 150.79 114.79 17.39 Oregon 465.00 1,545.08 447.22 644.23 Inside 117.81 1,264.30 83.75 338.51 Outside 347.19 280.79 363.47 305.72 California 904.04 77,579.10 903.95 19,718.42 Inside 704.05 67,228.14 532.69 15,537.82 Outside 199.99 10,350.96 371.26 4,180.60

Appendix C - Table C C-37 Proposed Areas Combined with Existing Closures Analysis

Observer Bycatch Data Geographic Predicted Habitat Suitability Coral Sponge Sea Pens/Whips

Area Area of High (4) (mi2) Standardized by Effort (After) Northern - Upper Slope 3,091.81 1,236.07 25,238.50 50.43 Inside 671.52 396.86 3,705.39 10.41 Outside 2,420.29 839.21 21,533.11 40.02 Northern - Shelf 226.09 174.84 463.75 45.57 Inside 61.77 57.16 163.93 0.09 Outside 164.32 117.68 299.82 45.47 Northern - Lower Slope 1,704.48 0.15 3.21 0.59 Inside 1,704.25 0.15 3.21 0.59 Outside 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 Central - Upper Slope 2,501.14 6.67 115.04 1.76 Inside 880.52 1.29 22.97 0.03 Outside 1,620.62 5.38 92.07 1.73 Central - Shelf 302.74 0.05 3.28 0.77 Inside 212.93 0.00 0.49 0.00 Outside 89.80 0.05 2.79 0.77 Central - Lower Slope 1,115.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 Inside 1,110.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 Outside 5.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 Southern - Upper Slope 2,473.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 Inside 2,391.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 Outside 81.58 0.00 0.00 0.00 Southern - Shelf 278.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 Inside 247.36 0.00 0.00 0.00 Outside 30.66 0.00 0.00 0.00 Southern - Lower Slope 1,659.82 0.00 0.00 0.00 Inside 1,659.82 0.00 0.00 0.00 Outside 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Olympic Coast NMS 339.78 54.30 121.94 5.38 Inside 144.10 37.40 67.42 0.01 Outside 195.68 16.90 54.52 5.37 Gulf of the Farallones NMS 261.88 0.00 0.00 0.10 Inside 166.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 Outside 95.86 0.00 0.00 0.10 Cordell Bank NMS 135.30 0.00 0.00 0.27 Inside 93.64 0.00 0.00 0.07 Outside 41.66 0.00 0.00 0.19 Monterey Bay NMS 1,360.93 1.87 10.35 1.19 Inside 731.14 0.00 0.34 0.06 Outside 629.79 1.87 10.01 1.12 Channel Islands NMS 262.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 Inside 262.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 Outside 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00

Appendix C - Table C C-38 Proposed Areas Combined with Existing Closures Analysis

Observer Bycatch Data Geographic Predicted Habitat Suitability Coral Sponge Sea Pens/Whips

Area Area of High (4) (mi2) Standardized by Effort (After) EEZ 13,359.17 1,417.78 25,823.79 99.11 Inside 8,945.54 492.87 3,963.77 11.28 Outside 4,413.63 924.92 21,860.02 87.83 Washington 1,852.31 272.13 678.44 14.24 Inside 883.74 117.65 223.05 2.00 Outside 968.58 154.48 455.39 12.24 Oregon 2,205.50 676.10 23,656.57 74.75 Inside 1,053.01 8.84 3,526.87 8.06 Outside 1,152.49 667.26 20,129.70 66.69 California 9,301.10 469.55 1,488.78 10.12 Inside 7,008.55 366.37 213.85 1.21 Outside 2,292.55 103.18 1,274.93 8.90

Appendix C - Table C C-39 Proposed Areas Combined with Existing Closures Analysis

NWFSC Species Models Geographic Darkblotched Rockfish Greenstriped Rockfish Longspine Thornyhead

Area Occurrence Abundance Occurrence Abundance Occurrence Abundance Northern - Upper Slope 1,367.44 7,228.72 1,004.78 5,463.14 5,221.51 181,824.21 Inside 208.84 1,230.37 193.63 1,873.81 1,221.01 49,651.58 Outside 1,158.60 5,998.35 811.16 3,589.33 4,000.50 132,172.63 Northern - Shelf 1,597.48 4,551.62 2,652.49 17,625.94 113.34 128.10 Inside 243.82 813.93 505.65 6,147.15 36.17 34.13 Outside 1,353.66 3,737.68 2,146.84 11,478.79 77.17 93.98 Northern - Lower Slope 0.54 0.00 0.15 0.00 1,189.22 55,378.63 Inside 0.54 0.00 0.15 0.00 1,188.45 55,347.22 Outside 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.77 31.42 Central - Upper Slope 373.92 1,059.08 392.65 635.75 4,606.71 128,538.22 Inside 87.26 346.30 110.23 243.93 1,655.10 52,009.89 Outside 286.65 712.78 282.42 391.82 2,951.62 76,528.33 Central - Shelf 356.35 499.80 990.25 2,076.70 112.06 936.17 Inside 89.45 168.85 282.17 708.24 88.39 779.27 Outside 266.90 330.95 708.08 1,368.46 23.67 156.90 Central - Lower Slope 0.16 0.00 0.06 0.00 728.49 31,032.83 Inside 0.16 0.00 0.06 0.00 725.17 30,942.78 Outside 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.32 90.06 Southern - Upper Slope 338.20 1,029.93 735.63 1,594.82 7,976.74 115,204.36 Inside 326.00 1,011.48 695.59 1,500.89 7,968.75 115,185.23 Outside 12.20 18.45 40.04 93.93 7.99 19.13 Southern - Shelf 73.26 163.22 391.50 1,062.39 66.17 78.14 Inside 64.72 155.71 339.93 998.22 64.88 77.81 Outside 8.55 7.51 51.58 64.17 1.29 0.33 Southern - Lower Slope 0.04 0.00 0.07 0.00 136.70 3,574.28 Inside 0.04 0.00 0.07 0.00 136.70 3,574.28 Outside 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Olympic Coast NMS 327.14 985.47 586.44 5,625.77 121.16 2,181.74 Inside 72.36 238.16 144.44 1,725.31 70.27 1,615.16 Outside 254.77 747.31 442.00 3,900.46 50.89 566.58 Gulf of the Farallones NMS 27.96 12.14 138.63 277.58 119.20 2,638.59 Inside 5.39 0.78 37.17 54.38 86.07 2,012.49 Outside 22.57 11.35 101.46 223.20 33.13 626.10 Cordell Bank NMS 49.18 50.50 119.74 279.91 63.02 1,383.44 Inside 15.05 19.76 36.35 129.38 37.13 866.90 Outside 34.13 30.74 83.38 150.53 25.89 516.53 Monterey Bay NMS 148.63 215.32 381.42 1,051.94 1,207.45 31,317.34 Inside 37.12 69.03 102.77 379.96 534.37 16,604.43 Outside 111.51 146.28 278.65 671.97 673.08 14,712.91 Channel Islands NMS 45.48 82.33 198.02 353.67 186.77 1,265.49 Inside 45.48 82.32 198.00 353.64 186.77 1,265.49 Outside 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.00

Appendix C - Table C C-40 Proposed Areas Combined with Existing Closures Analysis

NWFSC Species Models Geographic Darkblotched Rockfish Greenstriped Rockfish Longspine Thornyhead

Area Occurrence Abundance Occurrence Abundance Occurrence Abundance EEZ 4,107.40 14,532.37 6,167.59 28,458.76 20,151.06 516,695.24 Inside 1,020.84 3,726.64 2,127.47 11,472.25 13,084.70 307,602.44 Outside 3,086.56 10,805.73 4,040.12 16,986.50 7,066.36 209,092.80 Washington 700.62 2,868.26 1,040.16 8,235.20 1,538.30 49,257.36 Inside 140.11 651.84 216.76 2,292.62 875.77 32,834.38 Outside 560.51 2,216.42 823.40 5,942.58 662.53 16,422.98 Oregon 1,922.23 7,127.77 2,280.83 13,943.56 3,568.61 108,844.19 Inside 270.27 1,091.04 443.09 5,586.53 1,211.26 50,649.23 Outside 1,651.97 6,036.73 1,837.73 8,357.04 2,357.35 58,194.96 California 1,484.61 4,536.81 2,846.67 6,280.34 15,044.27 358,598.10 Inside 610.46 1,983.76 1,467.62 3,593.11 10,997.72 224,121.41 Outside 874.15 2,553.04 1,379.06 2,687.23 4,046.55 134,476.69

Appendix C - Table C C-41 Proposed Areas Combined with Existing Closures Analysis

NWFSC Species Models (continued) Geographic Petrale Sole Sablefish Yelloweye Rockfish

Area Occurrence Abundance Occurrence Abundance Occurrence Abundance Northern - Upper Slope 843.24 2,017.63 6,855.00 77,578.45 182.46 DATA Inside 181.17 518.48 1,476.65 14,416.61 46.87 N/A Outside 662.07 1,499.15 5,378.35 63,161.84 135.59 Northern - Shelf 7,002.37 25,008.28 3,014.86 14,201.20 566.63 Inside 1,714.69 4,429.95 461.84 2,377.19 232.47 Outside 5,287.68 20,578.33 2,553.02 11,824.01 334.16 Northern - Lower Slope 1.36 0.02 1,120.12 5,200.42 2.38 Inside 1.36 0.02 1,119.37 5,196.12 2.38 Outside 0.00 0.00 0.74 4.30 0.00 Central - Upper Slope 529.29 1,393.67 5,372.07 52,152.91 73.91 Inside 139.52 425.38 1,777.47 15,381.09 31.11 Outside 389.77 968.29 3,594.60 36,771.82 42.81 Central - Shelf 3,437.19 15,044.26 1,033.24 3,009.47 153.73 Inside 1,572.85 5,592.08 299.33 997.88 91.11 Outside 1,864.34 9,452.18 733.91 2,011.59 62.61 Central - Lower Slope 1.78 0.07 683.30 2,861.26 0.71 Inside 1.75 0.06 680.27 2,846.06 0.71 Outside 0.03 0.01 3.03 15.20 0.00 Southern - Upper Slope 512.56 1,062.64 5,128.93 30,906.31 94.47 Inside 470.48 946.57 5,107.65 30,824.93 92.56 Outside 42.08 116.06 21.29 81.38 1.91 Southern - Shelf 1,300.80 2,663.06 62.02 198.72 63.18 Inside 1,085.32 2,253.53 52.02 179.72 59.40 Outside 215.48 409.53 10.00 19.00 3.78 Southern - Lower Slope 0.32 0.03 110.86 472.81 0.09 Inside 0.32 0.03 110.86 472.81 0.09 Outside 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Olympic Coast NMS 1,531.37 4,675.03 690.39 5,551.49 156.39 Inside 530.68 1,166.19 200.87 2,069.12 57.55 Outside 1,000.69 3,508.85 489.52 3,482.37 98.84 Gulf of the Farallones NMS 630.73 2,980.91 264.62 895.86 15.18 Inside 242.05 1,001.13 116.04 364.29 6.74 Outside 388.68 1,979.78 148.58 531.57 8.44 Cordell Bank NMS 223.62 1,625.66 183.78 682.04 8.80 Inside 62.19 455.98 71.31 262.33 3.14 Outside 161.43 1,169.67 112.47 419.70 5.66 Monterey Bay NMS 1,179.34 4,379.83 1,627.54 16,034.02 97.34 Inside 506.54 1,637.62 585.22 4,955.78 64.48 Outside 672.80 2,742.21 1,042.32 11,078.24 32.86 Channel Islands NMS 495.45 1,305.60 144.19 704.41 22.91 Inside 495.44 1,305.58 144.18 704.40 22.91 Outside 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.00

Appendix C - Table C C-42 Proposed Areas Combined with Existing Closures Analysis

NWFSC Species Models (continued) Geographic Petrale Sole Sablefish Yelloweye Rockfish

Area Occurrence Abundance Occurrence Abundance Occurrence Abundance EEZ 13,629.18 47,189.78 23,380.46 186,581.65 1,137.57 Inside 5,167.61 14,166.18 11,085.49 72,692.51 556.70 Outside 8,461.57 33,023.60 12,294.97 113,889.14 580.87 Washington 2,637.13 7,727.21 2,626.69 21,210.35 239.13 Inside 852.15 1,688.33 1,069.62 7,994.68 74.48 Outside 1,784.98 6,038.88 1,557.07 13,215.67 164.65 Oregon 4,199.95 14,961.89 6,400.70 55,355.08 466.70 Inside 705.65 2,516.52 1,571.74 9,848.54 197.50 Outside 3,494.30 12,445.37 4,828.97 45,506.54 269.20 California 6,792.24 24,501.04 14,353.28 110,018.53 431.76 Inside 3,609.82 9,961.33 8,444.19 54,849.84 284.72 Outside 3,182.42 14,539.71 5,909.08 55,168.69 147.03

Appendix C - Table C C-43 Proposed Areas Combined with Existing Closures Analysis

Fishing Effort Geographic Bottom Trawl Effort Bottom Trawl Effort OR Shrimp Trawl Effort OR Shrimp Trawl Effort

Area Intensity - Before Intensity - After Intensity - Before Intensity - After Northern - Upper Slope 37,339,660.00 63,560,660.00 0.46206 0.40321 Inside 2,492,752.00 2,403,620.00 0.02128 0.00810 Outside 34,846,908.00 61,157,040.00 0.44078 0.39511 Northern - Shelf 16,986,110.00 21,618,100.00 1.88893 1.69971 Inside 689,222.90 464,513.50 0.07611 0.02083 Outside 16,296,887.10 21,153,586.50 1.81283 1.67888 Northern - Lower Slope 111,201.10 63,796.25 0.00000 0.00000 Inside 111,040.20 63,631.19 0.00000 0.00000 Outside 160.90 165.06 0.00000 0.00000 Central - Upper Slope 12,710,090.00 12,645,470.00 0.00158 0.00000 Inside 593,497.10 302,176.00 0.00104 0.00000 Outside 12,116,592.90 12,343,294.00 0.00054 0.00000 Central - Shelf 2,094,054.00 5,819,230.00 0.06966 0.00000 Inside 621,447.80 316,494.60 0.02271 0.00000 Outside 1,472,606.20 5,502,735.40 0.04696 0.00000 Central - Lower Slope 43,743.50 17,305.96 0.00000 0.00000 Inside 43,743.50 11,001.45 0.00000 0.00000 Outside 0.00 6,304.51 0.00000 0.00000 Southern - Upper Slope 108,500.30 54,017.93 0.00000 0.00000 Inside 60,638.79 16,847.31 0.00000 0.00000 Outside 47,861.51 37,170.62 0.00000 0.00000 Southern - Shelf 4,624,098.00 3,653,963.00 0.00000 0.00000 Inside 2,452,213.00 1,921,912.00 0.00000 0.00000 Outside 2,171,885.00 1,732,051.00 0.00000 0.00000 Southern - Lower Slope 0.00 0.00 0.00000 0.00000 Inside 0.00 0.00 0.00000 0.00000 Outside 0.00 0.00 0.00000 0.00000 Olympic Coast NMS 11,218,420.00 6,788,052.00 0.07783 0.11759 Inside 929,062.30 261,607.60 0.00018 0.00005 Outside 10,289,357.70 6,526,444.40 0.07765 0.11754 Gulf of the Farallones NMS 2,239,575.00 1,077,217.00 0.00000 0.00000 Inside 511,169.80 212,337.60 0.00000 0.00000 Outside 1,728,405.20 864,879.40 0.00000 0.00000 Cordell Bank NMS 605,764.50 561,945.60 0.00000 0.00000 Inside 137,429.70 121,304.90 0.00000 0.00000 Outside 468,334.80 440,640.70 0.00000 0.00000 Monterey Bay NMS 10,344,230.00 6,842,050.00 0.00000 0.00000 Inside 2,248,461.00 718,868.70 0.00000 0.00000 Outside 8,095,769.00 6,123,181.30 0.00000 0.00000 Channel Islands NMS 10,489.26 7,437.75 0.00000 0.00000 Inside 10,406.76 7,310.81 0.00000 0.00000 Outside 82.50 126.93 0.00000 0.00000

Appendix C - Table C C-44 Proposed Areas Combined with Existing Closures Analysis

Fishing Effort Geographic Bottom Trawl Effort Bottom Trawl Effort OR Shrimp Trawl Effort OR Shrimp Trawl Effort

Area Intensity - Before Intensity - After Intensity - Before Intensity - After EEZ 99,429,040.00 107,563,060.00 2.50007 2.22051 Inside 11,344,640.00 6,942,057.20 0.12131 0.02898 Outside 88,084,400.00 100,621,002.80 2.37876 2.19153 Washington 23,824,100.00 24,828,540.00 0.19936 0.23587 Inside 2,367,965.00 954,671.20 0.00349 0.00143 Outside 21,456,135.00 23,873,868.80 0.19588 0.23444 Oregon 29,325,520.00 45,748,420.00 2.22844 1.89417 Inside 1,293,383.00 1,291,709.00 0.09403 0.02462 Outside 28,032,137.00 44,456,711.00 2.13441 1.86955 California 46,279,420.00 36,986,100.00 0.07227 0.09048 Inside 7,683,292.00 4,695,677.00 0.02380 0.00293 Outside 38,596,128.00 32,290,423.00 0.04847 0.08755

Appendix C - Table C C-45 Appendix D. Coordinates (DDD mm.mmm') Site Number Name Description W. LONGITUDE N. LATITUDE -125 47.82379818 48 9.65561109 -125 48.02982144 48 6.203619186 -125 52.74423906 48 3.78248547 -125 47.17877718 47 57.305395788 Bottom Trawl (BT) Closure, Olympic Footprint -125 46.6298793 47 56.023723476 1 Deepwater Footprint Modification -126 2.85977382 48 6.888190374 Modification -126 2.86011912 48 6.888030468 -126 2.86070526 48 6.88850757 -125 53.71087416 48 11.0775624 -125 50.84555838 48 11.978729952 -125 0.79676034 48 6.140592948 -125 2.843355 48 4.341744762 -125 6.03312414 48 3.751204086 -125 7.63898358 48 5.053138668 -125 14.9589834 48 4.354736106 -125 17.0669361 48 2.742555918 BT Closure, Olympic II EFH -125 23.63508378 48 5.55429972 2 Olympic Conservation Area -125 23.66517954 48 13.407950994 Modification -125 24.90690906 48 16.106192814 -125 29.96751282 48 18.366944358 -125 22.80076422 48 20.266893336 -125 16.51077114 48 23.142607242 -125 15.44928558 48 19.911606222 -125 10.77516078 48 19.76249337 -124 51.40695204 47 28.719650208 -124 48.83785188 47 18.159790578 -125 1.17909996 47 17.668265034 -125 10.01090868 47 8.821326786 BT Closure, Ecologically 3 Quinault Canyon -125 17.18000004 47 19.25000001 Important Habitat Closed Area -125 17.25022998 47 19.6490757 -125 2.6287809 47 29.013848586 -124 54.7998 47 30.599999994 -124 52.2102 47 29.260199934 -124 13.36949754 46 52.893880272 Nearshore Footprint -124 20.87728536 46 51.243158256 4 Copalis Inner Shelf Modification, BT Closure, joins -124 31.58173374 46 58.38974358 WA State Waters -124 33.9681228 47 23.9736237 -124 24.74817402 47 24.432221616 -124 48.39305448 46 54.440380236 -124 48.39305988 46 54.440440572 -124 48.36 46 54.450000006 -124 48.39305448 46 54.440380236 -124 47.7543495 46 47.358561966 -124 51.52626552 46 47.330641824 BT Closure, Grays Canyon EFH -124 53.32944882 46 49.916345184 5 Grays Canyon Conservation Area -124 49.79293164 46 59.596952148 Modification -125 0.00090534 46 56.790321144 -125 0.20716668 46 58.296453528 -124 59.05736058 46 58.495603074 -124 59.52338106 47 1.020165654 -124 55.99822764 47 3.633823308 -124 55.83552012 47 3.694295706 -125 10.64306814 46 48.182049516 -124 49.69057566 46 28.85154927 -124 45.56148234 46 22.481803278 -124 56.64197622 46 12.95692317 BT Closure, Deepwater 6 Astoria Footprint Modification -124 56.2754742 46 10.03939884 Footprint Modification -124 50.19607374 46 10.263301902 -124 54.60112044 46 3.806437758 -124 56.50824324 45 51.349262058 -125 10.7488362 46 48.147376074

Appendix D Coordinates (DDD mm.mmm') Site Number Name Description W. LONGITUDE N. LATITUDE -124 28.41228114 46 34.453061496 -124 28.75777122 46 33.499736838 BT Closure, Ecologically -124 36.96438066 46 33.872669256 7 Willapa Canyonhead Important Habitat Closed Area -124 37.96525422 46 36.518847768 -124 41.11397994 46 37.641080706 -124 36.30798246 46 41.178829362 -124 25.40876322 46 13.545663054 -124 27.76034574 46 12.934583928 BT Closure, Ecologically 8 Astoria Canyonhead -124 27.84263406 46 17.434484868 Important Habitat Closed Area -124 22.51391064 46 17.0183763 -124 20.68412478 46 16.01678781 -124 15.77826312 45 32.063103108 -124 22.31849724 45 31.837209564 BT Closure, Ecologically 9 S. Nehalem Reef -124 29.49778056 45 46.341809256 Important Habitat Closed Area -124 27.05012958 45 47.454289758 -124 19.4258778 45 43.949479452 -124 24.85691196 44 57.984370134 -124 32.25956046 44 48.78757344 -124 37.33922166 44 50.033789478 BT Closure, Ecologically 10 Cascadia Shelf Hotspot -124 22.65311922 45 13.682945772 Important Habitat Closed Area -124 17.31045738 45 13.723823688 -124 17.33999502 45 13.59659553 -124 20.86361106 45 5.627226048 -124 46.85899236 44 50.037148302 -124 47.50486098 44 49.292660082 -124 48.90199956 44 49.313518986 -124 50.37244062 44 51.782615796 BT Closure, Ecologically 11 Siletz Hotspot -124 49.20733968 44 55.070141052 Important Habitat Closed Area -124 53.50193772 45 0.680581794 -124 50.7202878 45 0.927978756 -124 43.99925724 44 57.71149629 -124 42.5608014 44 54.230076414 -125 2.85530688 44 46.891794732 BT Closure, Ecologically -125 4.1591163 44 28.558687752 Hydrate Ridge/ Central OR 12 Important Habitat Closed -125 4.50971646 44 21.328222578 Footprint Modification Area/ Footprint Modication -125 3.21750492 44 9.871436034 -125 3.94783164 44 1.991528748 -124 38.06963814 44 38.784202662 BT Closure, Daisy Bank EFH -124 38.60075256 44 37.170680526 13 N. Daisy Bank Conservation Area -124 48.03087462 44 41.350315548 Modification -124 44.65854282 44 43.91658744 -124 28.22220312 44 40.447374078 -124 21.94478328 44 37.944026148 -124 21.6373098 44 34.89107814 BT Closure, Stonewall Bank -124 26.89759908 44 29.68125288 14 N. Stonewall Bank Modification -124 29.05114698 44 31.492156098 -124 32.74045488 44 34.683778002 -124 32.85160638 44 39.285486192 -124 30.5466291 44 42.325933872 -124 55.4799567 43 57.680463702 -124 55.48000002 43 57.680000016 -124 55.44746148 43 57.685408686 -124 54.15495906 43 55.600163196 BT Closure, Heceta Bank EFH -124 57.19770594 43 57.734733792 15 Heceta Bank West Conservation Area -124 57.79393614 44 6.244735488 Modification -124 57.86999994 44 12.666000012 -124 54.23780814 44 17.282978292 -124 51.99934662 44 16.932226794 -124 48.2783886 44 16.06467927

Appendix D Coordinates (DDD mm.mmm') Site Number Name Description W. LONGITUDE N. LATITUDE -124 39.4499706 44 27.67457235 -124 36.10687764 44 21.827962032 -124 30.21052404 44 27.255315048 -124 25.03854246 44 24.630215124 -124 26.5003965 44 20.26072473 -124 29.3570544 44 16.960506648 -124 38.49716262 44 6.06382401 -124 41.01473928 44 3.845531112 BT Closure, Heceta Bank EFH -124 44.55025728 44 1.486573734 16 Heceta Bank Conservation Area -124 46.182459 43 52.29031347 Modification -124 54.15495906 43 55.600163196 -124 55.48086732 43 57.680312334 -124 55.4799567 43 57.680463702 -124 55.48000002 43 57.680000016 -124 55.44746148 43 57.685408686 -124 48.2078274 44 16.121414208 -124 43.12911402 44 23.759172918 -124 46.25684916 44 27.675890292 -124 43.2166647 44 31.57331724 -124 31.00835406 43 5.331553482 -124 33.48821538 43 5.27669892 -124 39.672141 43 10.132526058 -124 40.8017565 43 11.849431038 -124 38.96987934 43 17.48353782 -124 34.99122726 43 19.48240287 -124 28.69929534 43 19.637964522 BT Closure, Ecologically -124 28.70164746 43 17.754408198 17 Cape Arago Reef Important Habitat Closed Area, -124 27.64480716 43 16.157388354 Joins OR State Waters -124 27.9613047 43 15.329551224 -124 28.29995808 43 13.88833935 -124 28.11082506 43 12.374796762 -124 29.09673162 43 9.648450228 -124 30.58954356 43 8.839729206 -124 31.36910244 43 7.58727702 -124 31.4651931 43 6.222807756 -124 38.74881186 42 23.07732495 -124 38.85796542 42 21.759285366 -124 41.17746444 42 22.769163018 -124 43.53429822 42 26.51492199 BT Closure, Ecologically -124 43.79879442 42 29.619529002 18 Rogue Canyonhead Important Habitat Closed Area -124 44.24963904 42 32.587953474 -124 39.63017316 42 32.719364496 -124 39.36687198 42 31.70668911 -124 41.96483112 42 29.969723556 -124 41.47312188 42 26.481693012 -125 2.6293437 41 56.664439662 -125 5.22447138 41 53.570065266 -124 54.26680536 42 22.416441114 S. Oregon Footprint BT Closure, Deepwater -124 54.92738286 42 16.006774914 19 Modification Footprint Modification -124 55.10581974 42 7.43420223 -124 57.25666026 41 59.149321674 -124 57.25907238 41 59.140011072 -124 58.07440506 41 58.764631416 -124 52.86912246 41 55.857136998 -124 53.41857882 41 48.904064832 -125 0.04849302 41 49.547279448 -124 59.90288718 41 51.95673024 Crescent City Deepwater BT Closure, Ecologically 20 -124 57.7332843 41 53.564756076 Hotspot Important Habitat Closed Area -124 59.60584482 41 58.043735142 -124 58.07440506 41 58.764631416 -124 57.25666026 41 59.149321674 -124 57.24447192 41 59.15505411 -124 26.24930382 41 48.995088648 BT Closure, Ecologically -124 30.0567045 41 48.941591736 21 Point St. George Reef Important Habitat Closed Area, -124 32.53004658 41 53.583214974 Joins CA State Waters -124 24.5770479 41 52.82219502 -124 24.58568712 41 52.818388506

Appendix D Coordinates (DDD mm.mmm') Site Number Name Description W. LONGITUDE N. LATITUDE -124 44.46366774 41 23.824043862 -124 39.28896846 41 12.965429508 BT Closure, Footprint -124 41.74764108 41 9.187376994 22 Eureka Footprint Modification Modification/ Ecologically -124 51.20195508 41 7.449485586 Important Area -124 57.00219606 41 22.862788272 -124 48.97697634 41 19.0648953 -124 20.91530238 41 13.273295322 BT Closure, Ecologically -124 23.18533962 41 13.079078598 23 Reading Rock Canyonheads Important Habitat Closed Area -124 29.4215805 41 23.410361328 -124 26.32845432 41 23.752950384 -124 36.56201874 40 57.980682672 -124 34.69000944 40 46.36612563 BT Closure, Ecologically -124 39.04317894 40 48.495594582 24 Samoa Deepwater Important Habitat Closed Area -124 45.26682894 40 58.341605412 -124 46.09772118 41 4.038523086 -124 43.26232842 41 4.604447772 -124 24.00213996 40 53.182600704 -124 24.30046008 40 51.897878118 BT Closure, Ecologically -124 26.28751896 40 52.34282328 25 Samoa Reef Important Habitat Closed Area -124 28.93691034 40 54.523118256 -124 29.48690946 40 57.89676402 -124 25.89305046 40 56.03641101 -124 27.68554962 40 39.467082192 BT Closure, Eel River Canyon -124 27.23366466 40 38.286910338 26 N. Eel River Canyon EFH Conservation Area -124 44.018118 40 40.499892972 Modification -124 38.4918075 40 43.312151448 -124 34.54581414 40 40.527590094 -124 28.75000002 40 35.599999974 BT Closure, Eel River Canyon -124 28.74559524 40 35.607401904 27 S. Eel River Canyon EFH Conservation Area -124 28.74049998 40 35.605301358 Modification -124 29.81275164 40 34.736385918 -124 41.354946 40 36.743151282 -124 32.22367716 40 30.46814871 -124 32.22434358 40 30.459739404 BT Closure, Ecologically -124 32.22999996 40 30.460000026 Important Habitat Closed Area, 28 Blunt Reef Expansion -124 31.0020468 40 22.446728748 EFH Conservation Area -124 32.16033132 40 24.974545308 Modification -124 33.43591866 40 28.727665242 -124 33.34990272 40 30.04044261 -124 36.0503235 40 14.527176756 -124 36.09798342 40 14.412616614 BT Closure, Mendocino Ridge -124 43.51758054 40 15.377168592 29 Mendocino Ridge Expansion Modification, Ecologically -124 51.13173402 40 15.56757822 Important Habitat Closed Area -124 57.79823154 40 17.63177886 -125 4.11420192 40 16.994014104 -124 16.48548612 40 7.834328052 BT Closure, Ecologically -124 17.76636324 40 5.907822474 30 Spanish Canyon Important Habitat Closed Area -124 23.04077496 40 9.989121912 -124 31.01555964 40 13.709345808 -124 31.9388808 39 59.63076894 BT Closure, Ecologically -124 21.43030794 39 56.28852483 Important Habitat Closed 31 Delgada Canyon Deep -124 12.59385846 39 44.2467315 Area/ Deepwater Footprint -124 37.54000002 39 50.769999996 Modification -124 37.56030612 39 50.78219997 -124 12.62726202 40 2.38388679 -124 12.92999994 40 2.480000016 32 Delgada Canyon Reopening Reopen to Bottom Trawling -124 10.9344078 40 4.317232542 -124 10.9199502 40 4.31215302

Appendix D Coordinates (DDD mm.mmm') Site Number Name Description W. LONGITUDE N. LATITUDE -124 3.3369903 39 47.304123198 -124 4.5407385 39 46.921098006 -124 8.60872386 39 52.53472812 -124 7.69600146 39 54.796634538 -124 9.00547182 39 56.240185326 -124 11.35681866 39 57.018853452 -124 12.54351246 39 58.237180848 BT Closure, Ecologically -124 9.78513684 40 1.420547154 33 South Delgada Canyonheads Important Habitat Closed Area -124 8.89933146 40 1.198881732 -124 8.88144342 40 1.19318907 -124 10.02409698 40 1.040559882 -124 11.86663074 39 58.117217538 -124 8.75855064 39 56.47735113 -124 7.27961412 39 54.667545072 -124 7.6811424 39 51.907958646 -124 3.30670224 39 48.76388136 -123 55.92968934 39 30.72562212 -123 56.5288305 39 30.623629992 BT Closure, Ecologically 34 Noyo Canyonhead -123 57.77321154 39 32.11681497 Important Habitat Closed Area -123 58.2269778 39 34.81308321 -123 56.6515356 39 34.709331654 BT Closure, Footprint -124 7.29728208 39 7.087545432 35 Navarro Canyon Modification/ Ecologically -124 10.02894234 39 0.529962264 Important Area -124 12.7386684 39 9.218304078 -123 55.71925956 38 54.965752608 -123 56.72101158 38 54.747485706 -123 56.701728 38 59.967090072 -123 57.5031261 39 4.153506852 BT Closure, Ecologically 36 Pt. Arena Canyonheads -123 56.65003884 39 4.21214331 Important Habitat Closed Area -123 56.5575537 39 1.737239568 -123 55.65929274 38 59.443275342 -123 56.26500108 38 58.866185448 -123 56.10239574 38 56.93562381 -123 37.13969682 38 45.115264836 -123 43.40551776 38 44.571857778 BT Closure, Ecologically -123 43.40748198 38 44.575855314 37 Saunders Reef Important Habitat Closed Area, -123 48.97759044 38 48.197105964 Joins State Waters -123 48.9802149 38 48.196018686 -123 49.82243106 38 49.274221122 -123 44.73947082 38 51.773789148 -123 48.97759044 38 48.197105964 -123 43.40748198 38 44.575855314 -123 43.40551776 38 44.571857778 -123 41.76 38 41.220000024 38 Pt. Arena Biogenic Reopening Reopen to Bottom Trawling -123 34.78999998 38 35.489999994 -123 34.93721592 38 35.428643838 -123 36.82530714 38 34.670437434 -123 50.52066378 38 47.557573176 -123 48.9802149 38 48.196018686 -123 36.8220612 38 34.642659174 Pt. Arena Biogenic South BT Closure, EFH Conservation 39 -123 34.57125924 38 32.387510142 Expansion Area Modification -123 41.07080466 38 32.868026676 -123 30.56742096 38 25.032565722 BT Closure, Ecologically -123 34.0316139 38 23.578254582 40 Russian River Important Habitat Closed Area -123 37.37063052 38 29.07163389 -123 33.49036752 38 29.015312028 -123 25.77382278 38 6.992345994 -123 27.80047404 38 6.951873594 -123 28.801035 38 7.85360838 BT Closure, Ecologically -123 28.44407226 38 9.2861466 41 Gobbler's Knob Important Habitat Closed Area -123 29.60253048 38 11.640599868 -123 28.87757898 38 12.363921624 -123 27.6079392 38 12.418043178 -123 24.29541228 38 8.790104358

Appendix D Coordinates (DDD mm.mmm') Site Number Name Description W. LONGITUDE N. LATITUDE -123 22.51999998 37 59.319999972 -123 22.54397172 37 59.27955825 -123 22.5290856 37 59.342361648 -123 18.36932952 38 1.040267562 -123 23.24063814 37 56.338371078 -123 22.08533646 38 0.998582274 -123 20.27088798 38 1.030125102 -123 23.91400662 38 6.033029814 -123 20.56378446 38 3.201223494 -123 20.80705716 38 3.153220296 -123 20.80298424 38 3.149441754 -123 32.3346057 37 58.6331016 BT Closure, EFH Conservation 42 Cordell Bank Expansion -123 28.33592658 37 58.523473302 Area Modification -123 29.83804158 38 0.134160546 -123 29.92984152 38 0.13871292 -123 31.57902372 38 1.99908933 -123 31.69979994 38 4.279800042 -123 30.2018787 38 6.04249404 -123 4.9412526 38 1.060337994 -123 7.06501344 38 1.04544093 -123 7.0721175 38 1.089956394 -123 7.06000002 38 1.090000002 -123 6.82999998 38 5.769999984 -123 6.8463369 38 5.766954072 -123 1.73325288 38 9.94337889 -123 20.49807336 38 3.17756544 -123 14.9693205 38 4.27076943 43 Cordell Bank East Reopening Reopen to Bottom Trawling -123 14.89867404 38 1.028015916 -123 18.34389576 38 1.023233868 -123 23.63999994 37 54.750000018 44 Cordell Bank South Reopening Reopen to Bottom Trawling -123 24.56340162 37 50.678258622 -123 23.24326296 37 56.346276054 -123 16.87794144 37 49.226089818 BT Closure, Ecologically Important Habitat Closed Area, -123 21.6721809 37 53.60918334 45 Rittenberg Bank Modifies Farrallon Islands/ -123 19.6234506 37 54.329967798 Fanny Shoal -123 14.11154904 37 51.544391472 -123 19.6234506 37 54.329967798 -123 18.62339406 37 54.654866742 BT Closure, Ecologically -123 18.5224896 37 54.613403136 Important Habitat Closed Area, 46 Fanny Shoals Shelf Extension -123 16.5944265 37 55.109270136 Modifies Farrallon Islands/ Fanny Shoal -123 4.73802972 37 49.087609212 -123 14.07 37 51.58000002 -123 14.10665274 37 51.548587746 -123 9.4008141 37 44.348594862 -123 9.36135858 37 44.290641954 -123 11.54813922 37 45.994832574 -123 13.28135496 37 46.6654419 BT Closure, Ecologically -123 14.17451568 37 46.515290262 Important Habitat Closed Area, -123 14.41481202 37 46.63426548 47 Cochrane Bank Modifies Farrallon Islands/ -123 14.84329668 37 46.620686094 Fanny Shoal -123 16.94795454 37 47.8779237 -123 16.92680256 37 48.08620134 -123 16.87794144 37 49.226089818 -123 16.80973302 37 49.230229122 -123 16.81000002 37 49.230000006

Appendix D Coordinates (DDD mm.mmm') Site Number Name Description W. LONGITUDE N. LATITUDE -123 24.56432682 37 50.674175022 -123 14.46455934 37 45.428792298 -123 12.73073916 37 45.56097189 -123 12.72877878 37 45.560049528 -123 12.32051838 37 45.590858592 -123 6.9875103 37 40.834949928 BT Closure, Ecologically Farallon Escarpment to -123 7.88958378 37 35.699589042 48 Important Habitat Closed Pioneer Canyon Deep -123 7.57418214 37 35.150831178 Area/ Footprint Modification -123 8.59957866 37 31.649347278 -123 12.54870294 37 24.151568934 -123 10.56289062 37 20.922278664 -123 7.9765794 37 20.883057396 -123 7.70989794 37 19.58196489 -123 11.35617018 37 16.715303472 -123 1.29435372 37 20.312189838 BT Closure, Ecologically 49 Pioneer Canyon -123 4.83650514 37 16.27845861 Important Habitat Closed Area -123 6.21567336 37 21.78140913 -122 47.66568564 37 27.101511864 -122 50.72202354 37 24.939552 BT Closure, Ecologically 50 Pioneer Canyonhead -122 51.47461698 37 26.77889172 Important Habitat Closed Area -122 53.31776214 37 27.963196902 -122 49.89891456 37 29.816758182 -123 5.78086188 37 6.818062488 -122 55.75967214 37 2.52627432 BT Closure, Ecologically -122 54.87122394 37 3.22863606 51 Cabrillo Canyon Important Habitat Closed -122 48.35267322 37 0.989086386 Area/ Footprint Modification -122 47.41957398 36 59.310884928 -122 47.63403426 36 58.17917544 -122 27.44442636 37 7.491000054 BT Closure, Ecologically -122 29.26872102 37 6.631564728 52 Pescadero Reef Important Habitat Closed Area -122 31.70284698 37 8.6503065 -122 30.15254754 37 10.022126088 -122 23.81085642 37 0.56467623 -122 25.5058653 36 58.083576462 -122 26.8348122 36 58.694119956 BT Closure, Ecologically 53 Ascension Canyonhead -122 25.54050396 36 59.910720138 Important Habitat Closed Area -122 24.53537952 37 1.254476388 -122 24.55605024 37 1.530134202 -122 24.22214874 37 1.51786599 -122 22.47564546 36 53.582742372 BT Closure, Ecologically -122 22.11874668 36 52.730601186 Lower portion of Ascension Important Habitat Closed -122 29.94062244 36 54.015857706 54 and Ano Nuevo canyons Area/ Monterey Bay Canyon -122 26.35622628 36 57.298168002 Modification -122 23.58330828 36 56.534416824 -122 23.67709542 36 54.170674296 -122 21.41953482 36 58.590778998 BT Closure, Ecologically -122 22.22083704 36 56.98059846 55 Ano Nuevo Canyonhead Important Habitat Closed Area -122 23.27072436 36 57.408672114 -122 21.77073312 36 58.968766182 -122 12.47820126 36 54.491642694 -122 13.04573784 36 53.998917282 -122 17.91033738 36 56.786006706 BT Closure, Ecologically -122 18.137352 36 57.796717038 56 South of Davenport Important Habitat Closed Area -122 17.71575342 36 57.835586046 -122 17.0509248 36 57.382093722 -122 14.2618878 36 55.83988302 -122 12.60792396 36 54.802810314 -122 14.13999996 36 51.409999998 Lower Portion of Cabrillo 57 Reopen to Bottom Trawling -122 15.0818928 36 49.597400298 Canyon -122 22.11499338 36 52.721638002 -122 16.06980612 36 42.041658768 BT Closure, Monterey Bay 58 SW of Smooth Ridge -122 13.30951434 36 40.300699344 Canyon Modification -122 18.48984432 36 44.324528148

Appendix D Coordinates (DDD mm.mmm') Site Number Name Description W. LONGITUDE N. LATITUDE -122 8.09909856 36 46.773674214 -122 6.31550256 36 46.440807168 -122 5.58841158 36 46.742598054 -122 5.58084018 36 46.745740092 Monterey Canyon Deep BT Closure, Monterey Bay 59 -122 5.48191218 36 46.306232418 Expansion Canyon Modification -122 5.4822312 36 46.306086174 -122 9.2184198 36 41.851991484 -122 10.51899888 36 42.302484876 -122 9.85983054 36 44.163271692 -122 5.48191218 36 46.306232418 -122 5.4822312 36 46.306086174 BT Closure, Ecologically -122 5.5275102 36 46.492239552 Important Habitat Closed 60 Outer Soquel Canyon -122 5.54759244 36 46.574798292 Area/ Monterey Bay Canyon -122 5.58841158 36 46.742598054 Modification -122 6.01663926 36 48.502238268 -122 3.12445104 36 49.183547736 -122 9.68712312 36 39.885220296 -122 9.68882976 36 39.884820054 61 S of Mars Cable Reopen to Bottom Trawling -122 9.53852958 36 40.503760122 -122 9.342477 36 41.29688421 -122 1.2211485 36 30.791094594 -122 1.30952844 36 30.78321078 62 W of Carmel Canyon Reopen to Bottom Trawling -122 1.30959948 36 30.783711252 -122 3.44763012 36 30.593503182 -122 1.22128398 36 30.791554056 BT Closure, Ecologically -122 3.4562121 36 30.592738344 63 W of Sobranes Point Important Habitat Closed -122 13.5408618 36 25.408405614 Area/ Footprint Modification -122 13.70669604 36 25.421985726 -122 11.61000006 36 25.25000004 -122 14.37000006 36 16.049999994 64 E of Sur Ridge Reopen to Bottom Trawling -122 15.94000008 36 16.139999994 -122 15.95290722 36 13.854876618 -122 13.54161822 36 25.408015764 BT Closure, Big Sur Coast EFH -122 10.20727806 36 12.301170294 65 Triangle S of Surveyors Knoll Conservation Area -122 15.95292 36 13.849580526 -122 10.19557332 36 12.298010256 66 Sur Canyon Slot Canyons Reopen to Bottom Trawling -122 0.27138684 36 14.83500978 -121 58.83274554 36 15.208336878 -122 1.18738764 36 16.664565006 BT Closure, Ecologically 67 Sur Platform Rocks -122 2.25199542 36 17.954246388 Important Habitat Closed Area -122 1.5256857 36 18.555826998 -121 57.8485257 36 17.654307954 -121 39.36685362 36 2.337197376 -121 45.3804 35 58.8942 BT Closure, Ecologically Important Habitat Closed -121 47.33757546 35 58.92946881 Between Partington Point and 68 Area/ Big Sur Coast EFH -121 50.49283368 35 58.995666564 Lopez Point Conservation Area -121 43.14 36 7.399999998 Modification -121 43.16841924 36 7.41819807 -121 43.14387048 36 7.425806646 -121 20.92371774 35 39.184596594 BT Closure, Ecologically La Cruz Canyon to Piedras -121 23.4177318 35 39.155591532 69 Important Habitat Closed Area Blancas -121 28.85941956 35 45.816837828 (joins state waters) -121 29.8565175 35 50.15116491 -120 46.57160382 35 6.545562798 BT Closure, Ecologically -120 48.65092842 35 4.96843491 70 Pt. Buchon Important Habitat Closed Area -120 57.54731274 35 8.221562148 (joins state waters) -121 1.6655469 35 15.268025754 -120 57.87771324 35 15.227325804 -121 14.85 34 52.829999976 BT Closure, Ecologically -121 14.7300018 34 43.390147656 East Santa Lucia Bank Important Habitat Closed Area, -121 18.752118 34 45.322747056 71 (Northwest Expansion) East Santa Lucia Bank -121 18.61048692 34 56.63647533 Modification -121 7.0578912 35 0.61451892 -121 5.96892648 34 52.820119008

Appendix D Coordinates (DDD mm.mmm') Site Number Name Description W. LONGITUDE N. LATITUDE BT Closure, Ecologically -120 57.72075678 34 36.658903692 East Santa Lucia Bank Important Habitat Closed Area, -120 59.44896438 34 35.06913147 72 (Southeast Expansion) East Santa Lucia Bank -121 10.22170536 34 39.98903607 Modification -121 5.76004428 34 45.055926048 -120 51.82334976 34 50.48728404 -120 43.49914476 34 36.424594098 BT Closure, Ecologically -120 44.40954348 34 36.73125138 73 Pt. Arguello Important Habitat Closed Area -120 54.00999996 34 40.040000028 -120 55.05227964 34 42.819168222 -120 55.66182264 34 49.949437674 -118 24.6470208 33 44.493911196 -118 24.64096068 33 44.4822693 -118 24.62262 33 44.48160756 -118 24.56785308 33 44.445554592 -118 24.69176556 33 44.515517322 -118 48.46238478 34 0.03966039 -118 48.4654152 34 0.041471514 -120 15.12438936 34 23.552274906 -119 57.09027654 34 20.147001054 -119 49.14498426 34 16.840827642 -119 42.12263694 34 11.243023476 -119 34.60100142 34 11.332131792 -119 19.88150268 34 6.914312934 -119 17.5641951 34 6.111558138 -119 15.12422742 34 6.210610038 -118 36.393429 33 55.89683802 -118 39.80697204 33 53.538881328 -118 36.29719716 33 50.10488433 -118 16.81567104 33 39.279994974 BT Closure, Ecologically -118 17.28133038 33 35.777979054 74 Southern CA Bight Important Habitat Closed Area -118 12.56759616 33 33.760125072 -118 11.4583503 33 34.705920726 -118 11.43534858 33 34.679828142 -118 10.22883624 33 33.358667976 -118 6.6444192 33 35.25082761 -118 1.47564084 33 33.601344552 -117 20.51791086 32 50.96400024 -117 23.43958026 32 46.306391232 -117 20.97808842 32 42.68069505 -117 21.08027334 32 34.088366868 -117 27.32145048 32 35.26964847 -117 49.99999998 32 36.700000014 -117 49.99999998 32 41.999999994 -118 2.00000004 32 42.000000006 -118 2.00000004 32 29.999999982 -117 53.54110896 32 30.00002313 -118 10.38548364 31 57.84038157 -120 54.29257704 34 2.676274512 -120 30.97897866 34 23.088921114 -120 25.3242105 34 21.645262986 -118 59.57957958 31 3.749488458 -119 5.77000002 31 2.630000022 -119 7.45000002 31 6.239999988 -119 9.96 31 4.960000002 BT Closure, joins with -119 8.97 31 2.050000014 Deepwater Footprint 75 Deepwater EEZ Closure -119 26.74000002 30 58.829999994 Modification >3500 meter to -119 28.05 31 6.87 EEZ -119 42.05000004 31 5.899999986 -119 45.63 30 55.410000006 -121 51.97219848 30 32.519416824 -128 46.72189344 40 18.17000946 -121 55.3109259 36 54.926550726 Potential reopening to bottom trawling - Initial draft concept -121 52.00320096 36 49.732266378 for analysis. Any reopening -121 52.44333966 36 48.980946096 would require California -121 57.77850834 36 52.23946824 76 Monterey Bay legislation, in a separate -121 59.32425072 36 51.680657442 process outside the purview of -122 2.12078646 36 52.009891824 the PFMC or the EFH 5-year -122 4.18901964 36 52.816435086 review. -122 4.51162806 36 53.907575316

Appendix D