April 2, 2015 Dorothy Lowman, Chair Pacific Fishery Management Council 1100 NE Ambassador ...

122 Pages·2015·4.33 MB·English

by  Kerry F. Griffin

Agenda Item E.5.b
Supplemental Public Comment 2
Full Version Electronic Only
April 2015
April 2, 2015 111 SW Columbia Street, Suite 200
Portland, Oregon 97201
Dorothy Lowman, Chair
pewtrusts.org
Pacific Fishery Management Council
1100 NE Ambassador Place, #101
Portland, OR 97220
RE: Agenda Item E.5 (Groundfish Essential Fish Habitat Amendment Scoping, Including
RCA and Area Adjustments)
Dear Chair Lowman and Council Members,
We write to express our support for the Pacific Fishery Management Council’s (Council)
ongoing efforts to develop an amendment to its Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP) to
holistically address and improve both habitat protections and economic opportunities in the
fishery. Such an approach is another example of the Council’s demonstrated commitment to the
implementation of Ecosystem-Based Fishery Management (EBFM), not only through its Fishery
Ecosystem Plan (FEP) and related Ecosystem Initiatives, but also through more traditional
actions taken under its four existing single-species FMPs.
At the April Council meeting, we ask the Council to advance this Groundfish FMP amendment
by delineating a broad scope for the action and providing guidance on the development of a wide
range of alternatives. We place special emphasis on including alternatives expanding bottom
trawl closures of unfished areas to the pristine deepwater beyond the 3,500 meter depth contour
and on protection of deep sea corals (DSC) and other structure forming invertebrates. On the
following pages we offer detailed recommendations in these and other areas, summarized as
follows:
• Include the following in the scope of issues to be addressed in the FMP amendment
through the development of a range of alternatives:
New or modified designations of Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) for Council-
o
managed groundfish species
New or modified EFH Conservation Areas
o
New or modified habitat protections under authorities other than EFH
o
New or modified area-based management measures to address mortality or
o
bycatch
New or modified gear regulations to address management needs including habitat
o
protection (e.g., measures to address bottom contact by midwater trawl gear)
New designations of key prey species of Council-managed groundfish
o
• Incorporate the remaining stakeholder proposals from Phase II of the five year EFH
review into a menu of options available to the Council, organized by the type of
management measures described (e.g., EFH designations, EFH closures, gear-related
regulations, etc.)
• Adopt a coastwide scope for the development of a range of alternatives
• Develop alternatives for closing areas beyond the 3,500 meter depth contour to bottom
trawling under authorities other than EFH, especially the broad authority in Section
303(b)(12) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA)
• Prioritize the protection of DSC and other structure-forming invertebrates, through the
utilization of EFH or other legal authorities
• Adopt a process and schedule for further development of the FMP amendment, including:
Review and adopt a range of alternatives at the September 2015 Council meeting,
o
as currently planned on a provisional basis in the Council’s Preliminary Year at a
Glance Summary
Schedule the adoption of Preliminary Preferred Alternatives (PPA) for the April
o
2016 Council meeting
Introduction:
The Council has become a leader on practicable, operational implementation of EBFM, which is
demonstrated through the evolution of this management action. First, the Council initiated and
completed a proactive, robust five year review of groundfish EFH, including solicitation and
review of a set of stakeholder proposals for EFH revisions. Upon concluding that sufficient new
information was available to warrant consideration of new EFH provisions, the Council initiated
an FMP amendment.
Second, the Council recognized that certain area-based management measures in the FMP
originally created to address issues other than habitat nevertheless had significant ancillary
habitat benefits, and thus any revision of those measures could have habitat implications. Most
prominently, this applies to potential revisions the Council hopes to adopt for the depth-based
Rockfish Conservation Area (RCA).
In light of this the Council decided to consider combining these two complex yet critical
management actions into a single amendment. This type of holistic approach is highly consistent
with the tenets of EBFM, and the Council deserves credit for this decision.
The Council also deserves credit for its willingness to look beyond legal requirements and seek
proactive, precautionary, ecosystem-oriented habitat protections like its past efforts to freeze the
footprint of bottom trawling. Now the Council’s deliberative, stakeholder-driven approach has
again presented the opportunity to make significant strides in this direction. Therefore we urge
the Council to cast a wide net as it sets the scope of this FMP amendment, developing
alternatives for a wide array of potential new habitat and EFH protections including expansion of
the trawl footprint closure beyond its current 3,500 meter depth limit, and also alternatives for
modification of various area-based management measures that will improve both habitat
protection and fishery profitability.
The information on the following pages provides a more thorough analysis and justification of
our requests.
2
Identify a wide scope of issues for development of alternatives, including habitat
protections under authorities other than EFH and including adjustments to area-based
management measures (e.g., RCA):
The FMP amendment currently being scoped was initiated as a result of the Council’s recent
five-year review of groundfish EFH. It was originally a more narrowly focused action to review
and update EFH designations and protections for managed groundfish species. Subsequently, the
Council decided to consider the inclusion of other issues in the amendment, including issues of
an area-based nature with potential habitat ramifications or a nexus to habitat concerns.
The primary example of an area-based management issue with a habitat nexus that has been
added is consideration of adjustments to the depth-based RCA. This longstanding and highly
successful management measure, a complex array of large coastwide seasonal and year-round
closed areas, was created in 2002 to address incidental catch of overfished stocks.1
As these overfished stocks have begun to recover, the Council and the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration’s Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries) have appropriately
considered changes to portions of the boundary of the RCA to liberalize fishery access, such as a
Council proposal in 2013 to re-open certain areas that have been closed to bottom trawling since
2004.2 The proposed re-openings were subsequently found to include areas that may have
partially recovered from trawl impacts.3
NOAA Fisheries in turn concluded that RCA changes of this magnitude may have habitat-related
impacts, and that additional analysis (including further progress of the Council’s ongoing review
of groundfish EFH) was needed before the RCA changes could be approved.4 While the RCA
closures were not established to serve as habitat protection (they were intended to address catch
and bycatch of overfished stocks), they are nevertheless recognized for their “corollary
mitigating effect on adverse impacts to EFH.”5 As such, it is important to consider, analyze, and
address the EFH-related effects of any RCA boundary changes. The most efficient and
comprehensive way to do so is through a combined FMP action with goals and objectives
designed to achieve an overall improvement and increase in habitat protection, consistent with
provisions of the MSA that call for the conservation and enhancement of EFH.6
In September 2014 the Council recognized the value of a combined FMP action and decided to
consider “a package of actions related to area management modifications concurrently with the
1 “Rockfish Conservation Areas”, NOAA FISHERIES West Coast Region, accessed March 24, 2015,
http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/fisheries/management/groundfish_closures/rockfish_areas.html
2 See 78 Fed. Reg. 56641-56645, (September 13, 2013), (Rockfish Conservation Area Boundaries for Vessels Using
Bottom Trawl Gear, Proposed Rule), p. 56643
3 See NOAA FISHERIES, “Trawl Rockfish Conservation Area (RCA) Boundary Modifications, Final
Environmental Assessment”, February 2014, at p. 23
4 See 79 Fed. Reg. 21639-21647, (April 17, 2014), (Rockfish Conservation Area Boundaries for Vessels Using
Bottom Trawl Gear, Final Rule), pp. 21641, 21643
5 See Pacific Fishery Management Council, Final Amendment 19 to the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery
Management Plan, November 2005, page 73
6 See 16 U.S.C. § 1853 (a)(7); see also 16 U.S.C. § 1855 (b)(1)(A)
3
essential fish habitat amendment (EFH) process.”7 These potentially include RCA revisions,
changes to midwater trawl access to RCA and EFH Conservation Areas, modifications to area-
based gear restrictions, and possible creation of a new RCA to conserve cowcod.8
We support this expanded scope for the amendment. The addition of potential adjustments to
area-based management measures will certainly increase the complexity of the action and the
associated analyses. However, it will ensure that managers can make fully informed and holistic
decisions and that any FMP revisions designed to increase industry access and profitability also
meet requirements to conserve and enhance EFH.
We also support setting the scope of the amendment such that habitat protections under
authorities other than EFH can be considered and included in the range of alternatives. In
particular, the Council should develop and include alternatives for protecting deepwater habitat
beyond 3,500 meters through an expansion of the trawl footprint closure. If EFH authority is not
a viable approach to accomplish this objective, the MSA includes several other provisions that
are well-suited to the task such as the broad authority to conserve fishery resources, including
habitats, throughout the ecosystem.
The authority for habitat protections in this fragile portion of the ecosystem has long been
available in the MSA. The “conservation and management” called for in the very title of the law
is defined broadly to include measures to “rebuild, restore, or maintain….any fishery resource
and the marine environment” (emphasis added) and intended to assure that adverse effects are
avoided.9 Furthermore, the fishery resources referred to in the definition of conservation and
management are also defined in the MSA to include “any species of fish, and any habitat of fish”
(emphasis added).10 These longstanding legal authorities for habitat protection were bolstered
and emphasized in the 2007 re-authorization of the MSA, which reinforced existing authority by
adding new provisions for protection of DSC, and by adding an explicit and broad authority for
FMPs to include “management measures in the plan to conserve target and non-target species
and habitats, considering the variety of ecological factors affecting fishery populations.”11
In addition, the Council should allow for a broad scope of potential new EFH provisions
including new or modified designations of EFH for Council-managed groundfish species and
new or modified EFH Conservation Areas. The Council has significant new information at hand
which warrants a regulatory update to groundfish EFH designations and protections. This
information includes the Phase 1 Report12, the EFH Synthesis Report13, the EFHRC Phase 2
7 “Groundfish: Trawl Rationalization (Amendment 20) and Intersector Allocation (Amendment 21) Trailing
Actions”, PFMC, accessed March 24, 2015, http://www.pcouncil.org/groundfish/trawl-rationalization-amendment-
20-and-intersector-allocation-amendment-21-trailing-actions/
8 Ibid
9 16 U.S.C. § 1802 (5)
10 16 U.S.C. § 1802 (15)
11 See 16 U.S.C. § 1853 (b)(2) and 16 U.S.C. § 1853 (b)(12)
12 See PFMC, Pacific Coast Groundfish 5-Year Review of Essential Fish Habitat, Report to the Pacific Fishery
Management Council, Phase 1: New Information, Including Addendum, September 2012
13 See PFMC, Groundfish Essential Fish Habitat Synthesis: A Report to the Pacific Fishery Management Council,
April 2013 (Synthesis Appendix also available)
4
report14, and the stakeholder proposals.15 Collectively this information is sufficient to support
development, consideration and analysis of updated EFH designations, modifications to existing
habitat closures and/or adding new ones, as well as other measures relating to major prey
species, gear modification and enforcement.
The EFH Synthesis Report shows that since EFH was last revised under this FMP, scientists
have gathered more information that may better guide how and where we should fish in order to
minimize adverse impacts on delicate and important areas. The report includes newly available
information such as:
“updated maps of seafloor habitat types and bathymetry; …a summary of models to
predict groundfish distribution relative to habitat types, as well as trophic and ecosystem
models useful for groundfish EFH; …summaries of new information on the life history
and habitat requirements of the 91 species in the Pacific Groundfish FMP; …updated
information on threats to groundfish EFH and prey species, both from fishing and non-
fishing activities;16
Include all proposed management measures contained in the remaining stakeholder
proposals from Phase II of the five year EFH review, but incorporate their contents in a
reorganized list of options available to the Council
We recommend that the Council retain the contents of all remaining stakeholder proposals
within the scope of the amendment, but also consider incorporating their contents into a
combined menu of options available to the Council and organized by the type of management
measures described (e.g. EFH designations, EFH closures, gear-related regulations, etc.).
As we have previously commented17, the remaining stakeholder proposals collectively represent
a diverse and valuable set of ideas for potential management revisions, and all should remain
available for use in drafting a range of alternatives. In the past we also commented on the
importance of retaining all the proposals because they had not yet received a rigorous
independent analysis.18 Since then NOAA Fisheries has completed some preliminary analyses
on the proposals.19 Their review offers intriguing possibilities including demonstrating that
14 See PFMC, REVIEW OF PACIFIC COAST GROUNDFISH ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT: PHASE 2 REPORT
TO THE PACIFIC FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL (EFHRC Phase 2 Report), March 2014
15 See PFMC, September 2013 Council Meeting Briefing Book, Informational Report 3: Groundfish Essential Fish
Habitat Review: Summary of Proposals Received and Process for Completion
16 See Pacific Fishery Management Council, “Pacific Coast Groundfish 5-Year Review of Essential Fish Habitat,
Report to the Pacific Fishery Management Council , Phase 1: New Information”, p. ES-1, September 2012
17 See PFMC, November 2013 Council Meeting Briefing Book, Agenda Item H.7.d Supplemental Public Comment
packet #2, pp. 8-12. See also PFMC, March 2014 Council Meeting Briefing Book, Agenda Item D.2.d
Supplemental Public Comment packet #3, pp. 14-22
18 See PFMC, March 2014 Council Meeting Briefing Book, Agenda Item D.2.d Supplemental Public Comment
packet #3, pp. 14-22
19 See PFMC, September 2014 Council Meeting Briefing Book, Supplemental Informational Report 7 “NMFS
Report – NMFS Response to Council’s Questions Concerning the Effectiveness, Accuracy, and Completeness of
5
some proposals may protect considerable amounts of new habitat with little net impact on
industry operations. However, by design this analysis stopped short of analyzing the impacts of
the specific measures (e.g., proposed new EFH Conservation Areas) contained within the
stakeholder proposals.20 Since there may be specific new designations, protections, or re-
openings in any given proposal that would fare favorably under such an analysis, either on their
own or as part of a compromise package, it would be prudent to retain all the current contents
within the potential scope of the action at this time.
This would have two major benefits. First, similar measures in different proposals would be
organized more efficiently into categories based on their actual potential impacts. Overlap and
redundancy would be more easily identified and addressed. Second, the individual merits of any
given proposed measure would be more easily assessed, once divorced from the rest of the
stakeholder package.
Adopt a coast wide scope for the development of a range of alternatives
Consistent with our previous recommendation in March 2014, we recommend that at this stage
the Council again retain a coast wide scope for this action, allowing for the potential
development of a broad range of alternatives.21 Once again we point out that while the Essential
Fish Habitat Review Committee (EFHRC) Phase 2 Report suggests that the Council “may
reasonably choose to narrow the geographic scope of Phase 3, this same recommendation also
states that “there is insufficient baseline information to confirm that EFH is adequately
protected.”22
In addition, it simply seems prudent to retain a coast wide scope given the depth-based RCA is a
coast wide management measure. As NOAA Fisheries also points out in the Final Rule
implementing some of the 2015-2016 RCA modifications proposed by the Council, there is
ongoing stakeholder interest in a broad, long-term, presumably coast wide re-examination of the
catch control aspects of the RCA.23 This same Final Rule also points out that the process would
benefit from a high degree of coordination with ongoing EFH action.24 To maximize the
potential utility of such a coordinated action, a coast wide scope for both issues is appropriate at
this stage.
Pacific Coast Groundfish EFH” with preliminary stakeholder proposal analyses (such as estimates of fishing effort
displacement and how much currently designated EFH would be subject to new protections or re-openings, etc.)
20 Ibid, at p. 4 describing the lack of specific criteria to measure the costs and benefits of the proposals and proposal
elements against, and that this level of analysis was beyond the scope of the report
21 See PFMC, March 2014 Council Meeting Briefing Book, Agenda Item D.2.d Supplemental Public Comment
packet #3, pp. 14-22
22 See EFHRC Phase 2 Report, page 16
23 See 79 Fed. Reg. 21639-21647, (April 17, 2014), (Rockfish Conservation Area Boundaries for Vessels Using
Bottom Trawl Gear, Final Rule), p. 21641
24 Ibid
6
Develop alternatives for a bottom trawl closure beyond 3,500 meters under authorities
other than EFH
We are strongly supportive of expanding the current closure of depths greater than 700 fathoms
(1,280 meters) to bottom trawling beyond its current seaward limit of 3,500 meters. The
Council’s original intent in Amendment 19 to the Groundfish FMP, as passed in 2005, was to
include these areas in a bottom trawl closure extending from the 700 fathom line to the edge of
the US Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).25 However, NOAA Fisheries unfortunately did not
approve and implement this closure beyond the seaward depth limit of groundfish EFH: 3,500
meters (calculated based on the deepest observation of groundfish at 3,400 meters plus a
precautionary 100 meter buffer).26
The primary justification for the disapproval offered by NOAA Fisheries’ was that in the view of
the agency the Council’s intent to protect areas not identified as EFH, but to do so under EFH
authority, was not consistent with the MSA.27 The agency also stated that there were no other
MSA authorities available at that time sufficient for the task.28 However, as previously
discussed, the authority for habitat protections in this fragile portion of the ecosystem has long
been available in the MSA. The “conservation and management” called for in the very title of
the law is defined broadly to include measures to “rebuild, restore, or maintain….any fishery
resource and the marine environment” (emphasis added) and intended to assure that adverse
effects are avoided.29 Furthermore, the fishery resources referred to in the definition of
conservation and management are also defined in the MSA to include “any species of fish, and
any habitat of fish” (emphasis added).30
NOAA Fisheries did recognize the merits of the Council’s proposal, acknowledging that the
seafloor beyond 3,500 meters includes “hard bottom areas with biogenic habitats such as deep
sea corals” and that “all or most of the deep sea environments are likely to be highly sensitive to
impact, including very low levels of fishing effort (e.g. a single trawl).”31
In its Record of Decision, NOAA Fisheries indicated it was supportive of the type of ecosystem-
based and precautionary action the Council sought to take in the deepwater areas beyond 3,500
meters.32 NOAA Fisheries also stated their view that given appropriate authority it would
authorize the measures, referring specifically to MSA re-authorization proposals submitted by
NOAA Fisheries in 2005 that contained new authorities for “conservation and management
measures applicable to fishery resources throughout the fishery ecosystem.”33 While we again
point out that in fact sufficient authority already existed at that time, this longstanding authority
25 See Amendment 19 Final EIS, December 2005, page ix
26 See NOAA Fisheries, Amendment 19 Record of Decision, March 2006, pp. 24-25
27 Ibid, at pp. 24-26
28 Ibid, at pp. 24-26
29 16 U.S.C. § 1802 (5)
30 16 U.S.C. § 1802 (15)
31 Ibid, at p. 25
32 Ibid, at p. 26
33 Ibid, at p. 26
7
was ultimately reinforced in the 2007 MSA reauthorization in a manner very consistent with the
NOAA Fisheries proposal.
A comparison is useful. The NOAA Fisheries MSA reauthorization bill put forward by the
agency in 2005 included a proposed new addition to the list of discretionary components of
FMPs in Section 303(b) of the MSA that would allow Councils to include measures in FMPs to:
“incorporate conservation and management measures necessary to protect and enhance
the health and productivity of fishery ecosystems.”34
Language essentially the same as that ecosystem-oriented provision proposed by NOAA
Fisheries did make it into the MSA reauthorization bill ultimately passed by Congress and signed
into law in 2007:
“management measures in the plan to conserve target and non-target species and
habitats, considering the variety of ecological factors affecting fishery populations.”35
In essence, existing legal authorities for habitat protection were bolstered and emphasized in that
2007 re-authorization, which reinforced existing authority by adding new provisions for
protection of DSC and by adding an explicit and broad authority for FMPs to include
conservation and management measures to protect habitat, including habitat of non-target
species.36
We urge the Council to include an option to expand the current deepwater bottom trawl closure
in the scope of this amendment using MSA authority to conserve and manage to protect the
environment and habitat, as recently bolstered by the addition of FMP authority to implement
ecosystem-based measures to protect non-target habitats. Protection of this pristine and largely
unexplored area would be highly consistent with the principles of EBFM. Almost twenty years
ago, in its report to Congress, the Ecosystem Principles Advisory Panel (EPAP) articulated basic
policies for implementing EBFM that included two key suggestions the Council can fulfill with a
trawl footprint expansion: proactively evaluate the effects of potential new fisheries in advance
and apply the precautionary approach.37 The EPAP also articulates the importance of habitat
protection in its report for both target and non-target species.38
This action is also consistent with national priorities and strategies articulated by NOAA
Fisheries calling for increased protection of ocean habitat. The NOAA “Habitat Blueprint”
includes a guiding principle that calls for managers to “Anticipate and address changes to coastal
and ocean habitats due to environmental change; including development, climate, and other
34 See NOAA Fisheries, “Final MSA Reauthorization Bill”, September 2005, accessed March 25, 2015 at
https://web.archive.org/web/20051018144722/http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/docs/msa_reauthorization.pdf , page 9.
35 See 16 U.S.C. § 1853 (b)(12)
36 See 16 U.S.C. § 1853 (b)(2) and 16 U.S.C. § 1853 (b)(12)
37 See NOAA FISHERIES, “ECOSYSTEM-BASED FISHERY MANAGEMENT: A Report to Congress by the
Ecosystem Principles Advisory Panel”, 1998, p. 1
38 Ibid, at p. 3
8
pressures.”39 Leading NOAA habitat scientists, in a briefing paper presented at the May 2013
Managing Our Nation’s Fisheries conference, presented additional detail on a precautionary and
ecosystem-based NOAA Fisheries vision for habitat protection that drew in part on this Habitat
Blueprint:
“In 2005, the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy recommended that NOAA Fisheries
change the designation of essential fish habitat from a species-by-species to a
multispecies approach and, ultimately, to an ecosystem-based approach that includes
consideration of ecologically valuable species that are not necessarily commercially
important…there is already scientific and societal consensus on the importance of
certain habitat types based on their contributions as fish habitat, biodiversity and
ecosystem services. These include…deep-sea coral communities.” 40
It is helpful to briefly consider just how valuable and special this vast area of largely unexplored
seafloor is, and some of the emerging new information about it. New research shows that the
deep sea is critically important to human society and must be carefully stewarded and studied.
For instance, it serves as an important carbon sink in a time when carbon is increasingly a
pollutant of global concern.41 It harbors half of all marine biomass.42 And it is far from the
lifeless and static mud it was previously thought to be. Instead, we now know that it and the life
it harbors can change swiftly, including in response to human-induced change in the shallow
oceans found shoreward of it.43 These remote ocean deeps are also by no means immune to the
effects of climate change and ocean acidification.44
Finally, we note that significant analysis has already been conducted on the application of a trawl
closure in this area in the Amendment 19 FEIS, and much of it remains applicable.45 This
should reduce the analytical and record-building burdens associated with alternatives for this
portion of the amendment, with commensurate savings in staff time and other resources.
39 See NOAA 2012, “NOAA Habitat Blueprint”, fact sheet, available at
http://www.habitat.noaa.gov/habitatblueprint/pdf/habitat_blueprint_factsheet.pdf
40 See Sutter et. al, “Integrating Habitat in Ecosystem-Based Fishery Management”, MONF III Session 2 speaker
papers, Session 2.3 Integrating Habitat considerations, Sutter et. al. page 7, available at
http://www.managingfisheries.org/2013%20documents/All_Session_2_papers.pdf
41 R. Thurber, A. K. Sweetman, B. E. Narayanaswamy, D. O. B. Jones, J. Ingels, R. L. Hansman. Ecosystem
function and services provided by the deep sea. Biogeosciences Discussions, 2013; 10 (11): 18193 DOI:
10.5194/bgd-10-18193-2013, pp. 3941, 3945
42 Ibid, at p. 3947
43 Linda A. Kuhnz, Henry A. Ruhl, Christine L. Huffard, Kenneth L. Smith Jr. Rapid changes and long-term cycles
in the benthic megafaunal community observed over 24 years in the abyssal northeast Pacific. Progress in
Oceanography, 2014; 124 (2014) 1-11, p.1
44 R. Thurber, A. K. Sweetman, B. E. Narayanaswamy, D. O. B. Jones, J. Ingels, R. L. Hansman. Ecosystem
function and services provided by the deep sea. Biogeosciences Discussions, 2013; 10 (11): 18193 DOI:
10.5194/bgd-10-18193-2013, pp. 3953
45 See for example PFMC, Amendment 19 Final EIS, December 2005, pp. 4-26 to 4-28
9
Prioritize the protection of deep-sea corals (DSC) and other structure-forming
invertebrates
DSC are long-lived, slow to reproduce, fragile, bottom-dwelling animals that generally grow at
depths greater than 50 meters, but they have been found as far offshore as the abyssal plains,
even as deep as 6,000 meters (~20,000 feet).46 They enhance biodiversity and are thought to be
comparable in this regard to shallow-water reefs.47
Yet in contrast to their shallow-water cousins, DSC and their ecosystems are poorly understood.
Scientists are just beginning to explore these environments, and yet they have already
documented that over half of the approximately 5,100 coral species alive today are found below
the reach of the sun’s rays.48 Although DSC is not as well understood as shallow water coral,
science has already benefitted significantly from these ocean-bottom communities. For example,
because DSC are so long-lived, they have been used to better understand ancient ocean
circulation patterns via isotope analysis, shedding light on historic patterns of climate change,49
and they absorb CO in the ocean.50
2
EFH is defined as much more than the "classic" interpretation of rocky reefs. While those are
extremely important, so are other types of seafloor, or living habitat like corals and sponges.51
Scientists refer to cold water corals found in deep shelf, slope, and abyssal plain habitats as
“ecosystem engineers” because of their role as a basic building block for fish habitat and their
ability to form structures used by invertebrates as well as fish.52
We are supportive of a flexible approach wherein the same FMP amendment could potentially
protect DSC shoreward of 3,500 meters (the current extent of Groundfish EFH based on known
groundfish distribution) using EFH authorities, and protect them seaward of 3,500 meters
46 Adkins, J.F. et al. (1998). Deep-Sea Coral Evidence for Rapid Change in Ventilation of the Deep North Atlantic
15,400 Years Ago. Science: Vol. 280, No. 5364; pg. 725-728. See also Entnoyer and Morgan, Occurrences of
Habitat-forming Deep Sea Corals in the Northeast Pacific Ocean: A Report to NOAA’s Office of Habitat
Conservation, 2003, p. 15 (which documents bamboo coral (family Isididae) at 3,880 meters off Southern
California). See also Guinotte, J.M. and A.J. Davies (2012), Predicted deep-sea coral habitat suitability for the U.S.
West Coast, Report to NOAA-NMFS. P. 46 (which documents Scleractinian corals at approximately 4,000 meters
in waters near Davidson Seamount)
47 Watling, L. et al. (2011). Biology of Deep-Water Octocorals. Advances in Marine Biology: Vol. 60; pp. 41–123.
48 Roberts, J.M. et al. (2009). Cold-Water Corals: The Biology and Geology of Deep-Sea Coral Habitats. Cambridge
Univ. Press.
49 Adkins, J.F. et al. (1998). Deep-Sea Coral Evidence for Rapid Change in Ventilation of the Deep North Atlantic
15,400 Years Ago. Science: Vol. 280, No. 5364; pg. 725-728.
50 Grehan, A. et al. (2003). The Irish Coral Task Force and Atlantic Coral Ecosystem Study: Report on Two Deep-
Water Coral Conservation Stakeholder Workshops Held in Galway in 2000 and 2002. Marine Environment &
Health Series: Vol. 11, No. 117.
51 See PFMC, Pacific Coast Groundfish EFH EIS Appendix B, at p. 1 (“In addition to corals, other structure-forming
megafaunal invertebrates such as sponges and anemones are also a critical component of the habitat of continental
shelf and slope ecosystems. Structure-forming megafaunal invertebrates refer to any epibenthic organism that grows
to sufficient size to provide potential habitat structure for other benthic organisms and fishes.”)
52 R. Thurber, A. K. Sweetman, B. E. Narayanaswamy, D. O. B. Jones, J. Ingels, R. L. Hansman. Ecosystem
function and services provided by the deep sea. Biogeosciences Discussions, 2013; 10 (11): 18193 DOI:
10.5194/bgd-10-18193-2013, pp. 3944
10