9.0 Consistency with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA)

Transcription

1 9.0 Consistency with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA) This analysis was prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Magnuson- Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) and related regulatory requirements. A review of how this analysis, including the alternatives, comports with the Magnuson-Stevens Act national standards for fishery management and with the regulations implementing the EFH provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act is provided in this section. 9.1 National Standards Section 301 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act requires that fishery management plans (FMPs) contain conservation and management measures that are consistent with the ten National Standards: In General. Any fishery management plan prepared, and any regulation promulgated to implement any such plan, pursuant to this title shall be consistent with the national standards for fishery conservation and management. (1) Conservation and management measures shall prevent overfishing while achieving, on a continuing basis, the optimum yield from each fishery for the United States fishing industry. In terms of achieving optimum yield from the fishery, the Magnuson-Stevens Act defines optimum as the amount of fish that will provide the greatest overall benefit to the nation, particularly with respect to food production and recreational opportunities, and taking into account the protection of marine ecosystems; is prescribed as such on the basis of the maximum sustainable yield from the fishery, as reduced by any relevant economic, social, or ecological factor; and in the case of an overfished fishery, provides for rebuilding to a level consistent with producing the maximum sustainable yield in such fishery. National Standard 1 thus involves a number of tradeoffs to achieve optimum yield. Overall benefits to the nation may be affected by these tradeoffs, though our ability to quantify those effects is quite limited. Nevertheless, all alternatives considered in this analysis are consistent with National Standard 1. All alternatives for describing EFH (except for no action Alternative 1) would provide additional conservation benefits by increasing attention on the location and use of habitats by managed fish species. Likewise, the alternative approaches for identifying HAPCs (except for no action Alternative 1) would provide potential conservation benefits. (2) Conservation and management measures shall be based upon the best scientific information available. 1379

2 This document uses information of known quality from sources acceptable to the relevant scientific and technical communities. Several sources of data were used in the development of this document, including the analysis of potential impacts. These data sources include, but are not limited to: Inshore ME Beam Trawl Survey ( ) ME/NH Inshore Trawl Survey( ) NH Estuarine Seine Survey MA Inshore Trawl Survey ( ) RI Trawl Survey (seasonal and monthly) RI Coastal Ponds Survey RI Narragansett Bay Juvenile Finfish Survey CT Long Island Sound Trawl Survey ( ) CT Small Mesh Trawl Survey ( , 1996) NY Raritan Bay Survey ( ) NJ Trawl Survey ( ) NJ Delaware Bay Trawl Survey ( ) DE 16ft Trawl Survey ( ) DE 30ft Trawl Survey ( ) MD Coastal Bays Fisheries Investigation Project MD Seine Survey VA Juvenile Fish and Trawl Survey NC Trawl Survey NOAA Estuarine Living Marine Resource information Shelf NMFS bottom trawl survey ( ) NMFS sea scallop survey ( ) NMFS MARMAP ichthyoplankton survey ( ) Offshelf NMFS Deep-Sea Survey Deep Sea Experimental Fishery project reports Smithsonian collection data Literature Seamounts Literature Habitat Data Sources 1380

3 Shelf NGDC 2-Minute Gridded Bathymetry Data (ETOPO2) usseabed Marine Substrate Database Bottom temperature derived from NMFS MARMAP, bottom trawl, and hydrographic survey data. Although there are some limitations to the data used in the analysis of impacts of management measures and in the description of the affected environment, these data are considered to be the best available. The information in this analysis represents the most current, comprehensive set of information available, recognizing that some significant information, including ecological, biological, economic, and sociocultural information, is unavailable. Furthermore, the analyses were prepared by and reviewed by the Council s Habitat Plan Development Team, which is compiled of fisheries experts from academia and state/federal agencies (for a list of preparers, see Section ). Furthermore, all analyses comply with the Data Quality Act (DQA). Each of the alternatives was analyzed based on information that appears to be consistent with this standard to the fullest extent practicable. (3) To the extent practicable, an individual stock of fish shall be managed as a unit throughout its range, and interrelated stocks of fish shall be managed as a unit or in close coordination. This action amends all of the Council s FMPs including the Northeast Multispecies, Atlantic sea scallop, Monkfish, Atlantic Herring, Skates, Deep-sea red crab and Atlantic salmon which manage the species in the respective FMUs throughout the range of the species in U.S. waters, in accordance with the jurisdiction of U.S. law. As this action will continue the management of the fishery management units throughout their range, all alternatives appear to be consistent with this standard. (4) Conservation and management measures shall not discriminate between residents of different States. If it becomes necessary to allocate or assign fishing privileges among various United States fishermen, such allocation shall be (A) fair and equitable to all such fishermen; (B) reasonably calculated to promote conservation; and (C) carried out in such manner that no particular individual, corporation, or other entity acquires an excessive share of such privileges. The management measures proposed in this amendment do not discriminate between residents of different States. The proposed management measures have been analyzed in this DSEIS document and are expected to promote conservation of EFH. None of the alternatives makes explicit or implicit differentiation among residents of different states, and no direct allocation or assignment of fishing privileges is included in any of the alternatives. 1381

4 (5) Conservation and management measures shall, where practicable, consider efficiency in the utilization of fishery resources; except that no such measure shall have economic allocation as its sole purpose. This action does not allocate or remand fishery resources but rather moves forward the Magnuson-Stevens Act intent to identify important habitats and ecosystem components. As such, this standard is not affected. (6) Conservation and management measures shall take into account and allow for variations among, and contingencies in, fisheries, fishery resources, and catches. Changes in fisheries occur continuously, both as the result of human activity (for example, new technologies or shifting market demand) and natural variation (for example, oceanographic perturbations). This action takes into account these variations by including data with long time series and synthesis of scientific studies. (7) Conservation and management measures shall, where practicable, minimize costs and avoid unnecessary duplication. Since no restrictions on fishing practices to protect EFH are being considered at this time by the Council, no additional economic cost will be imposed on fishing communities and no duplication is expected. (8) Conservation and management measures shall, consistent with the conservation requirements of this Act (including the prevention of overfishing and rebuilding of overfished stocks), take into account the importance of fishery resources to fishing communities in order to (A) provide for the sustained participation of such communities, and (B) to the extent practicable, minimize adverse economic impacts on such communities. Since no restrictions on fishing practices to protect EFH are being considered at this time by the Council, fishing communities are not impacted by this action and, as such, the sustained participation of the communities is not jeopardized and no adverse economic impacts are predicted. (9) Conservation and management measures shall, to the extent practicable, (A) minimize bycatch and (B) to the extent bycatch cannot be avoided, minimize the mortality of such bycatch. None of the alternatives will change the amount of bycatch or the mortality of bycatch taken incidentally in the fisheries. Regulatory provisions that are in place at present will continue to provide incentives to fleets to minimize bycatch and mortality of such bycatch to the maximum extent practicable. 1382

5 (10) Conservation and management measures shall, to the extent practicable, promote the safety of human life at sea. None of the alternatives under consideration in this action will substantially change safety considerations for fishing vessels. 9.2 Other Required Provisions of MSFCMA including EFH Essential Fish Habitat This section provides a review of how this analysis addresses the required EFH contents of FMPs as specified in Section 303(a)(7) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the EFH final rule (50 CFR 600 Subpart J). (1) Description and identification of EFH. This analysis provides alternatives that describe and identify EFH in text that clearly states the habitats or habitat types determined to be EFH for each life stage of the managed species. The alternatives explain the physical, biological, and chemical characteristics of EFH and, if known, how these characteristics influence the use of EFH by the species/life stage. All EFH alternatives considered identify the geographic location or extent of habitats described as EFH. Maps of the geographic locations of EFH, or the geographic boundaries within which EFH for each species and life stage is found, for all alternatives considered are provided. For all EFH description alternatives, the description of EFH provides information on the usage of various habitats by each managed species. Proposed descriptions and identification of EFH were based on the best available sources, including peer-reviewed literature, unpublished scientific reports, data files of government resource agencies, and other sources of information. The best scientific information available was used in the description and identification of EFH, consistent with National Standard 2. All EFH description alternatives include maps that display, within the constraints of available information, the geographic locations of EFH or the geographic boundaries within which EFH for each FMP managed species and life stage is found. The data used for mapping were incorporated into a geographic information system (GIS) to facilitate analysis and presentation. (2) Fishing activities that may adversely affect EFH. This action does not include an evaluation of the fishing activities that may adversely affect EFH as it will be included in the subsequent action (Phase 2). In addition, this evaluation has been completed in recent years for each FMP independently. 1383

6 (3) Non-Magnuson-Stevens Act fishing activities that may adversely affect EFH. This evaluation will be included in the subsequent action (Phase 2). In addition, this evaluation has been completed in recent years for each FMP independently. (4) Non-fishing related activities that may adversely affect EFH. An extensive evaluation of the potential effect of non-fishing activities has been completed in this action (See section 5.2 and Appendix G). (5) Cumulative impacts analysis. A cumulative impact analysis is provided in Section 7.3 (6) Conservation and enhancement. The rule requires that FMPs must identify actions to encourage the conservation and enhancement of EFH, including recommended options to avoid, minimize, or compensate for any adverse effects, including effects of non-magnuson-stevens Act fisheries, non-fishing related activities, and cumulative effects. Conservation and enhancement recommendations are included in the Section 5.2 and Appendix D. (7) Prey species. Section 5.1 contains a thorough evaluation of the major prey species in the fishery management units (FMU). In addition, prey species information, where known, has been included in the EFH text descriptions for each species and life stage. (8) Identification of habitat areas of particular concern. This EIS includes a range of HAPC designation alternatives for consideration by the Council. (9) Research and information needs. Recommendations for research to improve upon the description and identification of EFH, the identification of threats to EFH from fishing and other activities, and the development of conservation and enhancement measures for EFH, were previously included in individual FMPs amendments and will be reviewed under Phase 2 of this action. (10) Review and revision of EFH components of FMPs. The Council and NMFS will periodically review the EFH provisions of FMPs and revise or amend EFH provisions as warranted based on available information. A complete review of all EFH information should be conducted as recommended by the Secretary, but at least once every 5 years. 1384

7 1385