Rule2025-22672
Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; Fisheries off West Coast States; Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan; Amendment 34; Groundfish Exclusion Area for Coral Research and Restoration
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
December 12, 2025
Effective
January 12, 2026
Issuing agencies
Commerce DepartmentNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Abstract
This final rule implements regulations for amendment 34 to the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (Groundfish FMP). The regulations include a closure to commercial groundfish bottom contact gear in Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary (MBNMS). Specifically, NMFS is implementing a new groundfish exclusion area (GEA) for the purposes of coral research and restoration within MBNMS at the site of Sur Ridge. This action closes the Sur Ridge site within the MBNMS off California to commercial groundfish bottom contact gear in order to protect future deep-sea coral research and restoration projects from the impact of fishing gear. The Office of National Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS) conducts scientific research in National Marine Sanctuaries, including on deep sea coral survival, growth and reproduction, under the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA) and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 90 Issue 237 (Friday, December 12, 2025)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 237 (Friday, December 12, 2025)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 57714-57720]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2025-22672]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 660
[Docket No. 251118-0171]
RIN 0648-BN15
Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; Fisheries off West Coast States;
Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery
Management Plan; Amendment 34; Groundfish Exclusion Area for Coral
Research and Restoration
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final rule implements regulations for amendment 34 to the
Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (Groundfish FMP). The
regulations include a closure to commercial groundfish bottom contact
gear in Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary (MBNMS). Specifically,
NMFS is implementing a new groundfish exclusion area (GEA) for the
purposes of coral research and restoration within MBNMS at the site of
Sur Ridge. This action closes the Sur Ridge site within the MBNMS off
California to commercial groundfish bottom contact gear in order to
protect future deep-sea coral research and restoration projects from
the impact of fishing gear. The Office of National Marine Sanctuaries
(ONMS) conducts scientific research in National Marine Sanctuaries,
including on deep sea coral survival, growth and reproduction, under
the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA) and the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).
DATES: Effective January 12, 2026.
ADDRESSES: Information relevant to amendment 34, which includes an
analysis that addresses Presidential Executive Order 12866, the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), and the statutory requirements of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act (the Analysis), may be obtained from the NMFS West
Coast Region website at: <a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/region/west-coast">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/region/west-coast</a>.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Megan Mackey, 206-526-6140,
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#3b565e5c5a5515565a58505e427b55545a5a155c544d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="761b13111718581b17151d130f361819171758111900">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Pacific Coast groundfish fishery in the
U.S. exclusive economic zone (EEZ) seaward of Washington, Oregon, and
California is managed under the Groundfish FMP. The Pacific Fishery
Management Council (Council) developed the Groundfish FMP pursuant to
the Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.). The Secretary of
Commerce approved the Groundfish FMP and implemented the provisions of
the plan at 50 CFR part 660, subparts C through G. Species managed
under the Groundfish FMP include more than 90 species of groundfish,
flatfish, rockfish, sharks, and skates.
This final rule implements regulations for amendment 34 to the
Groundfish FMP. Consistent with section 303(c)(1) of the Magnuson-
Stevens Act, the Council deemed the regulations consistent with and
necessary to implement amendment 34 in an October 1, 2024 letter from
the Council Executive Director to the Regional Administrator. The
notice of availability for amendment 34, which describes the specific
changes being made to the Groundfish FMP, was published on October 9,
2024 (89 FR 81878) and was open for public comment through December 8,
2024. The proposed rule for amendment 34, which includes the
regulations necessary for implementing amendment 34, was published on
October 23, 2024 (89 FR 84511), and was open for public comment through
November 22, 2024.
Background
The Council met throughout 2023 and 2024 to consider developing
fisheries closures for deep-sea coral restoration and research in
response to a request from the ONMS. ONMS conducts scientific research
in National Marine Sanctuaries, including within MBNMS, under the NMSA
and the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
In September 2023, ONMS presented a scoping paper that posed 5
locations with 10 sites within Greater Farallones National Marine
Sanctuary (GFNMS) and MBNMS for deep sea coral restoration and research
(section 1.2 of the Analysis). At that meeting, the Council chose to
continue to scope closures in MBNMS only, at the locations of
A[ntilde]o Nuevo and Ascension Canyons (two sites) and Sur Ridge (one
site), for areas to conduct coral research and restoration. The Council
proposed that these areas could be closed to bottom contact gears as
GEAs. GEAs were established by amendment 32 to the Groundfish FMP (88
FR 83830, December 1, 2023) and are a management tool intended to
mitigate the impacts to sensitive environments from certain groundfish
fishing activity.
[[Page 57715]]
At the June 2024 meeting, the Council adopted its final preferred
alternative to develop one GEA for commercial groundfish bottom contact
gear at Sur Ridge in MBNMS. It is anticipated that ONMS may begin deep-
sea coral outplanting at Sur Ridge in 2026.
The GEA at Sur Ridge applies to commercial groundfish vessels using
bottom contact gear. Currently, the GEA area is within a bottom trawl
essential fish habitat conservation area (EFHCA), and therefore no
bottom trawling is permitted. If the EFHCA were to be removed in the
future, the GEA will continue to prohibit bottom trawl. The GEA creates
new restrictions for non-trawl commercial groundfish vessels using
bottom contact gears in the limited entry fixed gear, directed open
access, and shore-based individual fishing quota sectors. Vessels using
non-bottom contact gear will still be permitted to operate in the area.
The GEA will close 36.64 square nautical miles of area, with depths
ranging from 2,690 to 5,118 feet (448 to 853 fathoms (fm) (4,919 meters
(m)). Overall, this GEA allows ONMS to perform deep-sea coral research
and restoration while having limited impact on the groundfish
fisheries.
Amendment 34
NMFS is implementing amendment 34 to the Groundfish FMP in
alignment with the Council's recommendation in June 2024. Amendment 34
revises the description of GEAs in the Groundfish FMP to remove
references to specific GEAs, consistent with how other closed area
types are included in the Groundfish FMP. Active GEAs are currently
listed in the FMP. With this amendment, active GEAs will instead be
noted in the Federal groundfish regulations at Sec. 660.70, and the
history of a specific GEA will likely be provided in the groundfish
Stock Assessment Fishery Evaluation document.
Revisions to GEAs
In addition to revising the description of GEAs under amendment 34,
in alignment with the Council's recommendation, NMFS is revising
regulations to modify the use of GEAs as a management tool in the
following ways. This final rule will:
<bullet> Add GEAs to the general groundfish prohibitions found at
Sec. 660.12;
<bullet> Revise the descriptions of GEAs found in Sec. Sec.
660.230, 660.330, and 660.360 to remove the specific references to the
Southern California Bight; and,
<bullet> Establish a new GEA at Sur Ridge in MBNMS.
This final rule will add GEAs to the general groundfish
prohibitions found in regulations by adding Sec. 660.12(a)(23) to the
list of prohibitions in Sec. 660.12(a). This will clarify that it is
unlawful for fishermen to violate any regulations that apply to
activity in GEAs. This final rule will also revise the descriptions of
GEAs in the regulations by updating Sec. Sec. 660.230, 660.330, and
660.360 to remove specific references to the Southern California Bight
and to generalize the GEA descriptions to allow for GEAs to be located
more broadly. This final rule will also update the GEA description at
Sec. 660.70(t) to note that there will be a total of nine GEAs and to
remove the specific reference to GEAs being areas south of Point
Conception, California. Finally, this final rule will add Sec.
660.70(t)(9) to the list of GEAs found in that section and will include
the latitude and longitude coordinates and other information relevant
to establishing the Sur Ridge GEA.
Expected Effects of This Action
The Council prepared a detailed Analysis (see ADDRESSES) that
analyzed the effects of amendment 34 on various resources. A brief
summary of expected effects from the Analysis is provided below and is
also included in the proposed rule (89 FR 84511, October 23, 2024).
All commercial groundfish participants that use bottom contact gear
for fisheries in the EEZ off Washington, Oregon, and California, which
are managed under the Groundfish FMP, may be affected by this final
rule. Bottom contact gear is defined at 50 CFR 660.11: ``fishing gear
designed or modified to make contact with the bottom. This includes,
but is not limited to, beam trawl, bottom trawl, dredge, fixed gear,
set net, demersal seine, dinglebar gear, and other gear (including
experimental gear) designed or modified to make contact with the
bottom. Gear used to harvest bottom dwelling organisms (e.g., by hand,
rakes, and knives) are also considered bottom contact gear for purposes
of this subpart.''
This list is non-exhaustive. The coral research and restoration
area is within existing bottom trawl EFHCAs, which prohibit all bottom
trawl gears from operating within those EFHCA boundaries. Given that
these areas are currently closed to bottom trawl vessels, this action
will establish no new impact to those vessels. Therefore, the action
will impact only fishing with non-trawl bottom contact gear types
within the GEA at Sur Ridge. The commercial gears that will be
permitted to operate within the newly closed area are midwater trawl
and select non-trawl gear types (troll gear and commercial vertical
hook-and-line gear not anchored to the bottom, such as vertical jig
gear or rod-and-reel gear with weights suspended off the bottom).
From 2019 to 2023, there were 429 distinct vessels that utilized
non-trawl bottom contact gears \1\ in the 3 commercial groundfish
sectors (directed open access (OA), limited entry fixed gear (LEFG),
and individual fishing quota (IFQ) gear switching) with an annual
average of 175 vessels operating annually (table 1) between the
latitudes of 40[deg]30' N and 36[deg] N. As described in section 3.5.2
of the Analysis, this is the catch area that encompassed the three
coral restoration and research areas proposed within MBNMS in late
2023. The Council ultimately only recommended one offshore area to move
forward as a GEA. Therefore, the estimated values here are expected to
reflect the maximum number of vessels that could potentially be
affected by this action. The actual number is likely lower. The
majority of affected vessels would participate in the directed OA
fishery. To protect the confidentiality of vessel data, IFQ gear
switching vessels were combined with LEFG vessels in table 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Vessels were selected based on FOS_Groundfish_Sector_Codes
of ``Catch Shares'', ``LE Fixed Gear Daily Trip Limit'', ``Limited
entry Sablefish'', and ``OA Fixed Gear'' and were not declared
(using declaration code) associated with non-bottom contact gears.
Table 1--Range of Vessels by Fishery Sector
[2019-2023]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fishery sector Range Average
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OA................................................. 130-172 149
LEFG/IFQ........................................... 24-29 26
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For purposes of this action, directed OA vessels are assumed to be
small entities, with ex-vessel revenues for all landings (groundfish
and non-groundfish) averaging $71,959. In 2023, 26 of the 29 LEFG
permits associated with vessels that would likely be subject to this
action (i.e., required to fish in the primary or LE trip limit
fisheries) were owned by small entities (self-reported). For gear
switching vessels likely to be affected by this action, all were
reported as small entities in 2023.
Note that there is not a strict one-to-one correlation between
vessels and entities, nor between permits and entities; therefore, some
persons or firms likely have ownership interests in more than one
vessel or permit.
[[Page 57716]]
Therefore, the actual number of entities regulated by this final action
may be lower than the estimates presented here.
If the area to be closed is key to the affected parties' fishing,
and if there are limited replacement fishing opportunities available,
the economic impact of the action may disproportionately affect small
entities compared to large entities and may result in some profit loss.
Given other likely current and future fishing restrictions impacting
the relevant catch area (e.g., nearshore restrictions north of the area
and limited or non-existent salmon seasons), offshore opportunities are
likely to be of greater importance in the portfolios of California
fishing vessels. However, given the limited documented historical
fishing activity at Sur Ridge and the depth of the closure, it is
likely that a limited subset of vessels might be impacted.
Additionally, these vessels could potentially move to other fishing
areas to maintain similar harvest opportunities.
Public Comments
The notice of availability for amendment 34 was published on
October 9, 2024 (89 FR 81878), and was open for public comment until
December 8, 2024. The proposed rule for amendment 34 was published on
October 23, 2024 (89 FR 84511), and was open for public comment until
November 22, 2024. NMFS received a total of nine public comment
submissions. Seven of these nine submissions are discrete comment
letters from individuals or organizations. Two of these nine
submissions, from the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), a
nonprofit membership organization, included two attachments. The first
attachment submitted had 9,177 comments from CBD's supporters, and the
second attachment submitted included 342 additional comments from CBD's
supporters, thereby bringing the total number of public comments to
9,526 after adding the additional seven discrete comment letters. The
comments from CBD's supporters are largely form responses, reiterating
a script provided by CBD. Specifically, these form responses support
the development of the GEA prohibiting commercial groundfish bottom
contact gear at Sur Ridge, in MBNMS, but also ask the agency to protect
additional areas (i.e., A[ntilde]o Nuevo and Ascension Canyons) in
MBNMS for coral research and restoration. NMFS also reviewed the CBD
submissions for unique comments, including themes, not captured in the
form responses.
To address both the volume of comments from CBD members and the
individual comments on this action, in addition to responding to
individual comments below, NMFS has identified themes raised in the
form submissions on which to focus our response. Overall, the comments
generally expressed support for the action. NMFS appreciates the
thoughtful comments and has considered them thoroughly.
Comments 1 & 2: Two commenters expressed general support for this
action.
Response: Your support for this action is noted.
Comment 3: One commenter discussed farming activity causing harm to
western shorelines in Florida.
Response: This comment is outside the scope of this action.
Comment 4: One commenter expressed support for this action and
requested information on whether areas adjacent to the Sur Ridge GEA
would be open to bottom contact gear, whether the Sur Ridge area would
be re-opened to bottom contact gear after completion of coral
restoration, and on the potential economic impacts of the Sur Ridge GEA
to small businesses.
Response: This action only addresses the fishing restrictions
established by the GEA at the area of Sur Ridge and not adjacent areas.
The GEA at Sur Ridge applies to commercial groundfish vessels using
bottom contact gear. Currently, the GEA is within a bottom trawl EFHCA,
and therefore no bottom trawling is permitted. If the EFHCA were to be
removed in the future, the GEA would continue to prohibit bottom
trawling. This GEA creates new restrictions for non-trawl commercial
groundfish vessels using bottom contact gears in the limited entry
fixed gear, directed open access, and shore-based individual fishing
quota sectors. Vessels using non-bottom contact gear will still be
permitted to operate in the area. The Council has requested periodic
updates from the ONMS on future coral restoration projects in the Sur
Ridge GEA, and, similar to all groundfish fishery regulations, the
Council and NMFS may re-evaluate this new GEA based on new information
in the future.
It was determined at the proposed rule stage that this action would
not have a significant adverse economic impact on a substantial number
of small entities and this determination remains unchanged. NMFS
determined that this action would apply to the entirety of all entities
fishing with bottom contact gear within the GEA and the majority of
those entities are considered small entities for RFA purposes (5 U.S.C.
601 et seq.). However, this action is expected to have a limited impact
on a modest number of small entities because there has been limited
documented fishing activity in the Sur Ridge area and because bottom
trawl gear is currently prohibited within the new GEA under the EFHCA.
The factual basis for this analysis has not changed and, as a result,
the final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. A more in-depth analysis on the
potential impacts to small businesses is contained in the proposed rule
(89 FR 84511) and in the Analysis.
Comment 5: Oceana expressed support for this action, but also
expressed concern that the decision to choose only one location in the
MBNMS as a GEA, instead of including the additional areas in both the
MBNMS and the GFNMS under consideration during the Council process,
would limit the functionality and success of ONMS's research and
restoration program. The commenter also suggested that the areas in the
GFNMS originally proposed by ONMS should have had further consideration
through the action development process. Finally, the commenter
indicated its support for fishing closures in additional areas,
including in GFNMS and A[ntilde]o Nuevo and Ascension canyons in MBNMS.
Response: This action closes the area within the Sur Ridge GEA to
commercial groundfish bottom contact gear in order to protect future
deep sea coral research and restoration projects from the impacts of
fishing gear. Neither the specifics of those future coral research and
restoration projects themselves nor their consistency with, or ability
to promote the success of, ONMS's larger research and restoration
program are within the scope of this action. As described in the
proposed rule, NMFS is implementing this rule pursuant to sections
303(c) and 304(b)(1) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Consistent with
section 303(c), the Council determined that the proposed regulations
are necessary to implement amendment 34 and submitted their proposed
regulations to NMFS on October 1, 2024. Under section 304(b)(1)(A),
NMFS reviews regulations proposed by the Council ``to determine whether
they are consistent with the fishery management plan, plan amendment,
[the statute] and other applicable law.'' If NMFS finds in the
affirmative, NMFS publishes proposed regulations in the Federal
Register, and, as outlined in section 304(b)(3), after a public comment
period, publishes final regulations.
As described in the proposed rule, at the September 2023 Council
meeting,
[[Page 57717]]
the ONMS proposed 5 locations with 10 sites within GFNMS and MBNMS for
Council consideration for potential fishing closures. At that same
meeting, the Council chose to scope three of these areas, all within
MBNMS. Areas proposed in the GFNMS were not included in the range of
alternatives that went forward for public review during the Council
process. At its June 2024 meeting, the Council selected its final
preferred alternative of establishing a GEA in Sur Ridge for purposes
of deep sea coral restoration and research. Additional closure areas
under consideration, including A[ntilde]o Nuevo Canyon and Ascension
Canyon, were ultimately not included in the Council's final preferred
alternative following public engagement, including multiple
opportunities for comment at Council meetings in 2023 and 2024. The
Council's final preferred alternative reflects its intent to balance
the purpose of coral research and restoration against the potential
impacts from closures to commercial fisheries. An in-depth analysis of
the Council's considerations is available in the Analysis (see
ADDRESSES). The Council's decision to recommend proceeding with the Sur
Ridge closure alone limits this action's impacts on commercial
groundfish fisheries, while also creating a GEA in which ONMS can
conduct future coral research and restoration. NMFS agrees with the
Council's recommendation. As described in the proposed rule, NMFS made
an affirmative determination that the Council's proposed regulations
are consistent with the national standards, the Groundfish FMP, the
other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law;
therefore, consistent with section 304(b), NMFS has adopted the
proposed regulations to implement amendment 34.
Comment 6: The National Ocean Protection Coalition expressed
support for this action and asked that the Council also consider
further protections through additional closures in areas recommended by
ONMS to protect deep sea coral from bottom contact gear. The commenter
requested that the Council provide a scientific and ecological
justification as to why additional closure areas were not also
considered and justification as to why amendment 34 is not in
accordance with MBNMS's science needs assessment.
Response: NMFS notes that this comment letter was addressed to the
Council and specifically made requests for future action for the
Council to consider. Council meetings include opportunities for public
comment on actions being considered by the Council and, throughout the
Council process, there were multiple opportunities for public comment
on this action. NMFS emphasizes that although the Council process
informs its decisions on which regulations to implement, that NMFS, not
the Council, makes the final decision on the substance of its
regulations. Although this comment letter was not addressed to NMFS,
given that it was submitted on the proposed rule, NMFS is responding to
the substance of the letter as it relates to the proposed rule,
although some of the commenter's requests are beyond the scope of this
action. Given the overlap of this comment with comment 5, NMFS
incorporates its response to comment 5.
The Council's final preferred alternative of creating a GEA at Sur
Ridge reflects its careful consideration of the intent to balance the
request from ONMS for new fishing area closures for coral research and
restoration (including the potential scientific and ecological
benefits) against the need to mitigate likely adverse impacts on the
fishing industry, small businesses, and fishing communities from the
potential loss of currently utilized fishing areas.
Neither the specifics of future coral research and restoration in
MBNMS nor their consistency with MBNMS's science needs assessment are
within the scope of this action. ONMS's Science Needs Assessment is an
evaluation of the science and information required to address the
conservation issues facing each sanctuary in the national marine
sanctuary system, which is designed to support ONMS's science and
management staff working to address information gaps and to communicate
science needs to potential partners, interested organizations, and
individuals to direct investments towards priority needs and
opportunities. The MBNMS's science needs assessment was not developed
in correlation with this action and is outside the scope of this
rulemaking. NMFS determined the Council's proposed regulations were
consistent with the national standards, the Groundfish FMP, the other
provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law.
Comment 7: The Center for Biological Diversity asserted that NMFS
should implement GEAs at all 10 sites, or at a minimum three sites,
contending that the available scientific evidence indicates that the 10
sites require fishing restrictions to support coral research and
restoration. The commenter further asserts that NMFS violated the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by failing to analyze the
environmental impacts of not designating all 10 sites originally
presented by ONMS for scoping as GEAs. Finally, the commenter asserted
that NMFS improperly deferred to the Council by ``advanc[ing] only
three out of 10 sites to the rulemaking process'' and failed to justify
in the Federal Register the change in agency position.
Response: Given the overlap with comment 5 above, NMFS incorporates
its response to comment 5. As described in the response to comment 5,
NMFS reviewed the Council's proposals and determined that the Council's
final preferred alternative for this action is consistent with the
national standards, the Groundfish FMP, other provisions of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law. Accordingly, consistent
with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS adopted the Council's final
preferred alternative.
The Council developed its range of alternatives and final preferred
alternative through the standard process established by the Magnuson-
Stevens Act, with the preferred alternative reflecting the intent to
balance ONMS's request for new fishing area closures for coral research
and restoration (including the potential scientific and ecological
benefits) against the need to mitigate likely adverse impacts on the
fishing industry, small businesses, and fishing communities from the
potential loss of currently utilized fishing areas. NMFS has reviewed
these findings and agrees with the Council's recommendation of the
final preferred alternative.
With respect to NEPA, NMFS determined that the proposed action
falls within one of the NOAA Categorical Exclusion categories listed in
Appendix F of the Companion Manual for NOAA Administrative Order 216-
6A; specifically, CE category A1: ``An action that is a technical
correction or a change to a fishery management action or regulation,
which does not result in a substantial change in any of the following:
fishing location, timing, effort, authorized gear types, or harvest
levels.'' Given the relatively small area of 36.64 sq. nm that the Sur
Ridge GEA closes to bottom contact gear, NMFS concludes that the new
GEA will have limited impact to the groundfish fisheries and is not
likely to result in a substantial change in fishing location, timing,
effort, authorized gear types, or harvest levels, especially since the
area is already closed to bottom trawling.
Finally, NMFS disagrees that there has been a change in agency
position. When presenting its proposal at the November 2023 Council
meeting, ONMS stated: ``ONMS developed this document that provides the
basis for
[[Page 57718]]
scoping should the Council take the opportunity to prepare draft
regulations under the [Magnuson-Stevens Act] for fishing, as deemed
necessary. This scope of action provides 10 areas total within five
larger locations for the Council to consider as they address the
request to provide protected areas for [deep sea coral] research and
restoration'' (Agenda Item H.2.a ONMS Report 1, available at <a href="https://www.pcouncil.org/documents/2023/08/h-2-a-onms-report-1-scoping-document.pdf">https://www.pcouncil.org/documents/2023/08/h-2-a-onms-report-1-scoping-document.pdf</a>). The Council considered this proposal, selected a range
of three alternatives, and ultimately selected one site as its final
preferred alternative to recommend to NMFS. NMFS then made the
determination that the Council's proposed regulations are consistent
with the national standards, the Groundfish FMP, other provisions of
the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law.
Form Letter Comments, Theme 1: NMFS has an opportunity and an
obligation to set aside A[ntilde]o Nuevo and Ascension Canyons as GEAs,
in addition to Sur Ridge, in order to mitigate human impacts in the
national marine sanctuaries. This theme was included in nearly all of
the form letter comments.
Response: This action closes the area within the Sur Ridge GEA to
commercial groundfish bottom contact gear in order to protect future
deep sea coral research and restoration projects from the impacts of
fishing gear. The mitigation of adverse human impacts to deep sea coral
ecosystems in the national marine sanctuaries--whether required,
elective, or stemming from specific incidents or general activity--is
outside of the scope of this action. NMFS incorporates its response to
comment letter 5 above. While multiple areas for potential GEAs were
considered during the Council's process, the Council included only a
GEA in Sur Ridge as its final preferred alternative. NMFS found the
Council's proposed regulations consistent with the national standards,
the Groundfish FMP, the other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act,
and other applicable law.
Form Letter Comments, Theme 2: NMFS should ban destructive fishing
gear, like heavy traps, from the sites of A[ntilde]o Nuevo Canyon,
Ascension Canyon, and Sur Ridge to prevent habitat degradation and
coral loss. This theme was included in nearly all of the form letter
comments.
Response: This action closes the area within the Sur Ridge GEA to
commercial groundfish bottom contact gear in order to protect future
deep sea coral research and restoration projects from the impacts of
fishing gear. The Sur Ridge GEA will prohibit all commercial groundfish
bottom contact gear, including pot (trap) gear, in federally-managed
fisheries. The authorization of and/or gear restrictions within state-
managed fisheries and other federal fisheries are outside the scope of
this action. This action does not include opening any new areas within
the national marine sanctuaries to fishing or to allow fishing in
sanctuary areas with new gear types; therefore, evaluating the
potential impacts of fishing gear on sanctuary resources is beyond the
scope of the proposed action.
Form Letter Comments, Theme 3: By designating only one area as a
GEA and not including the additional areas of A[ntilde]o Nuevo Canyon
and Ascension Canyon, NMFS is caving to industry pressure. This theme
was included in a handful of the form letter comments.
Response: While multiple areas for potential GEAs within national
marine sanctuaries were considered during the Council's process, the
Council only included a GEA in Sur Ridge as its final preferred
alternative. The Council recommended closing one area, the largest
under consideration, after careful consideration of balancing the
request from ONMS for new fishing area closures for deep sea coral
research and restoration against the need to mitigate likely adverse
impacts on the fishing industry, small businesses, and fishing
communities, from the potential loss of currently utilized fishing
areas. Balancing such considerations is an appropriate aspect of the
NMFS's and the Council's roles under the Magnuson-Stevens Act as the
decisionmaker and advisor, respectively, for regulations promulgated
under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Additionally, NMFS notes that other
fishery closures already exist in the national marine sanctuaries on
the U.S. West Coast and that these closed areas may be suitable for
future consideration for deep sea coral research and restoration work,
without requiring additional fishery closure actions.
Changes From the Proposed Rule
NMFS has identified minor technical corrections in the draft
regulations for implementing amendment 34. These corrections are needed
to incorporate regulatory updates from the final rule implementing
amendment 33 to the Groundfish FMP (89 FR 101514, December 16, 2024).
These corrections are addressed in the final regulations below.
No changes were made to the final rule in response to public
comments on the proposed rule.
Classification
Pursuant to sections 303(c) and 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-
Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this
final rule to implement amendment 34 is consistent with the FMP, other
provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law.
This final rule has been determined to be not significant for
purposes of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866.
This final rule is not an E.O. 14192 regulatory action because this
action is not significant under E.O. 12866.
There are no relevant Federal rules that may duplicate, overlap, or
conflict with this action.
This action would not have a substantial direct effect on one or
more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government
and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes; therefore,
consultation with Tribal officials under E.O. 13175 is not required,
and the requirements of section (5)(b) and (5)(c) of E.O. 13175 also do
not apply. A Tribal summary impact statement under section (5)(b)(2)(B)
and section (5)(c)(2)(B) of E.O. 13175 is not required and has not been
prepared.
The Chief Counsel for Regulation, Department of Commerce, certified
to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration
during the proposed rule stage that this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The factual basis for the certification was published in the proposed
rule and is not repeated here. No comments were received regarding this
certification, although NMFS received one non-specific comment about
the economic impacts of the rule. This comment did not change the
factual basis for this certification and a response to the comment is
included in the Comments and Responses section of this final rule. As a
result, a regulatory flexibility analysis was not required and none was
prepared.
This final rule contains no new information collection requirements
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 660
Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
[[Page 57719]]
Dated: November 18, 2025.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS amends 50 CFR part
660 as follows:
PART 660--FISHERIES OFF WEST COAST STATES
0
1. The authority citation for part 660 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq., 16 U.S.C. 773 et seq., and 16
U.S.C. 7001 et seq.
0
2. Amend Sec. 660.12 by adding paragraph (a)(23) to read as follows:
Sec. 660.12 General groundfish prohibitions.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(23) Fish for, take and retain, possess (except for the purpose of
continuous transit), or land any species of groundfish in the GEAs as
defined at Sec. 660.11 with coordinates defined at Sec. 660.70.
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec. 660.70 by revising the introductory text of paragraph
(t) and adding paragraph (t)(9) to read as follows:
Sec. 660.70 Groundfish conservation areas.
* * * * *
(t) Groundfish Exclusion Areas. The Groundfish Exclusion Areas
(GEAs) include nine areas off the coast of California intended to
protect sensitive areas, including areas with coral and sea pens. GEAs
are closed to both commercial and recreational groundfish fisheries
unless otherwise noted.
* * * * *
(9) Sur Ridge. The Sur Ridge GEA is closed to commercial groundfish
bottom contact gear only and is defined by straight lines connecting
the following specific latitude and longitude coordinates in the order
listed and connecting back to 36[deg]26.00' N lat., 122[deg]20.81' W
long:
(i) 36[deg]26.00' N lat., 122[deg]20.81' W long.;
(ii) 36[deg]25.55' N lat., 122[deg]15.23' W long.;
(iii) 36[deg]21.71' N lat., 122[deg]15.32' W long.;
(iv) 36[deg]17.95' N lat., 122[deg]17.13' W long.;
(v) 36[deg]16.42' N lat., 122[deg]16.69' W long.; and
(vi) 36[deg]16.41' N lat., 122[deg]20.76' W long.
* * * * *
0
4. Amend Sec. 660.230 by revising paragraphs (a) and (d)(16) to read
as follows:
Sec. 660.230 Fixed gear fishery--management measures.
(a) General. Most species taken in limited entry fixed gear
(longline and pot/trap) fisheries will be managed with cumulative trip
limits (see trip limits in tables 2b (North) and 2b (South) of this
subpart), size limits (see Sec. 660.60(h)(5)), seasons (see trip
limits in tables 2a (North), 2b (North), 2a (South), and 2b (South) of
this subpart and sablefish primary season details in Sec. 660.231),
gear restrictions (see paragraph (b) of this section), and closed areas
(see paragraph (d) of this section and Sec. Sec. 660.70 through
660.79). Cowcod, yelloweye, and California quillback rockfish retention
is prohibited in all fisheries, and groundfish vessels must adhere to
GEA restrictions (see paragraph (d)(16) of this section and Sec.
660.70). Regulations governing tier limits for the limited entry fixed
gear sablefish primary season north of 36[deg] N lat. are found in
Sec. 660.231. Vessels not participating in the sablefish primary
season are subject to daily or weekly sablefish limits in addition to
cumulative limits for each cumulative limit period. Only one sablefish
landing per week may be made in excess of the daily trip limit and, if
the vessel chooses to make a landing in excess of that daily trip
limit, then that is the only sablefish landing permitted for that week.
The trip limit for black rockfish caught with hook-and-line gear also
applies, see paragraph (e) of this section. The trip limits in tables
2b (North) and 2b (South) of this subpart apply to vessels
participating in the limited entry groundfish fixed gear fishery and
may not be exceeded.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(16) Groundfish exclusion areas (GEAs). GEAs are closed areas
defined by specific latitude and longitude coordinates (specified at
Sec. 660.70) where recreational and/or commercial fishing for
groundfish is prohibited unless otherwise noted at Sec. 660.70(t). It
is unlawful to fish for, take and retain, possess (except for the
purpose of continuous transit) or land groundfish within the GEAs
unless otherwise specified at Sec. 660.70(t). All prohibited fishing
gear for targeting groundfish, as specified at Sec. 660.70(t), must be
stowed while transiting through a GEA. If fishing for non-groundfish
species within a GEA, where all groundfish fishing is prohibited, then
no groundfish may be on board the vessel.
* * * * *
0
5. Amend Sec. 660.330 by revising paragraphs (a) and (d)(18) to read
as follows:
Sec. 660.330 Open access fishery--management measures.
(a) General. Groundfish species taken in open access fisheries will
be managed with cumulative trip limits (see trip limits in tables 3b
(North) and 3b (South) of this subpart), size limits (see Sec.
660.60(h)(5)), seasons (see seasons in tables 3a (North), 3b (North),
3a (South), and 3b (South) of this subpart), gear restrictions (see
paragraph (b) of this section), and closed areas (see paragraph (d) of
this section and Sec. Sec. 660.70 through 660.79). Unless otherwise
specified, a vessel operating in the open access fishery is subject to,
and must not exceed any trip limit, frequency limit, and/or size limit
for the open access fishery. Retention of cowcod, yelloweye rockfish,
and quillback rockfish off California is prohibited in all fisheries,
and groundfish vessels must adhere to GEA restrictions (see paragraph
(d)(18) of this section and Sec. 660.70). For information on the open
access daily/weekly trip limit fishery for sablefish, see Sec. 660.332
and the trip limits in tables 3b (North) and 3b (South) of this
subpart. Open access vessels are subject to daily or weekly sablefish
limits in addition to cumulative limits for each cumulative limit
period. Only one sablefish landing per week may be made in excess of
the daily trip limit and, if the vessel chooses to make a landing in
excess of that daily trip limit, then that is the only sablefish
landing permitted for that week. The trip limit for black rockfish
caught with hook-and-line gear also applies, see paragraph (e) of this
section.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(18) Groundfish exclusion areas (GEAs). GEAs are closed areas
defined by specific latitude and longitude coordinates (specified at
Sec. 660.70) where recreational and/or commercial fishing for
groundfish is prohibited unless otherwise noted at Sec. 660.70(t). It
is unlawful to fish for, take and retain, possess (except for the
purpose of continuous transit) or land groundfish within the GEAs
unless otherwise specified at Sec. 660.70(t). All prohibited fishing
gear for targeting groundfish, as specified at Sec. 660.70(t), must be
stowed while transiting through a GEA. If fishing for non-groundfish
species within a GEA, where all groundfish fishing is prohibited, then
no groundfish may be on board the vessel.
* * * * *
[[Page 57720]]
0
6. Amend Sec. 660.360 by revising paragraph (c)(3)(i)(B) to read as
follows:
Sec. 660.360 Recreational fishery--management measures.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(3) * * *
(i) * * *
(B) Groundfish exclusion areas (GEAs). GEAs are closed areas
defined by specific latitude and longitude coordinates (specified at
Sec. 660.70) where recreational and/or commercial fishing for
groundfish is prohibited unless otherwise noted at Sec. 660.70(t). It
is unlawful to fish for, take and retain, possess (except for the
purpose of continuous transit) or land groundfish within the GEAs
unless otherwise specified at Sec. 660.70(t). Prohibited recreational
fishing gear for targeting groundfish, as specified at Sec. 660.70(t),
may not be deployed while transiting through a GEA. If fishing for non-
groundfish species within a GEA, where all groundfish fishing is
prohibited, then no groundfish may be on board the vessel.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2025-22672 Filed 12-11-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on December 12, 2025.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.