DOCSLIB.ORG

ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT SECTION 7 CONSULTATION BIOLOGICAL OPINION Action Agency

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT SECTION 7 CONSULTATION BIOLOGICAL OPINION Action Agency May 20, 2013 DRAFT -- NOT FINAL ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT SECTION 7 CONSULTATION BIOLOGICAL OPINION Action Agency: National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Region, through its Sustainable Fisheries Division Activity: Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation on the Continued Implementation of Management Measures for the Northeast Multispecies, Monkfish, Spiny Dogfish, Atlantic Bluefish, Northeast Skate Complex, Mackerel/Squid/Butterfish, and Summer Flounder/Scup/Black Sea Bass Fisheries [Consultation No. F/NER/2012/01956] Consulting Agency: National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Regional Office, through its Protected Resources Division Date Issued: ______________________________ Approved by: ______________________________ May 20, 2013 DRAFT -- NOT FINAL Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 1 2.0 Consultation History ................................................................................................... 1 2.1 Consultations Review .................................................................................................. 1 2.1.1 Multispecies ........................................................................................................... 2 2.1.2 Monkfish ................................................................................................................ 3 2.1.3 Spiny Dogfish ........................................................................................................ 4 2.1.4 Bluefish .................................................................................................................. 6 2.1.5 Skates ..................................................................................................................... 6 2.1.6 Atlantic Mackerel/Squid/Butterfish ....................................................................... 7 2.1.7 Summer Flounder/Scup/Black Sea Bass ................................................................ 8 2.2 Cause for Reinitiating .................................................................................................. 9 3.0 Description of the Proposed Action ........................................................................... 9 3.1 Description of the Gear Used in the Seven Fisheries ................................................ 11 3.2 Description of the Current NE Multispecies Fishery ................................................. 12 3.3 Description of the Current Monkfish Fishery ............................................................ 21 3.4 Description of the Current Spiny Dogfish Fishery .................................................... 24 3.5 Description of the Current Atlantic Bluefish Fishery ................................................ 27 3.6 Description of the Current NE Skate Complex Fishery ............................................. 28 3.7 Description of the Current Mackerel/Squid/Butterfish Fishery ................................. 32 3.7.1 Description of the Atlantic Mackerel Fishery ...................................................... 33 3.7.2 Description of the Short-fin Offshore (Illex) Squid Fishery ................................ 36 3.7.3 Description of the Longfin Inshore Squid Fishery .............................................. 38 3.7.4 Description of the Butterfish Fishery ................................................................... 40 3.8 Description of the Current Summer Flounder/Scup/Black Sea Bass Fishery ............ 42 3.9 Summary by Gear Type ............................................................................................. 45 3.10 Exempted, Education, and Research Fishing Permits ............................................... 46 3.11 Fisheries Observer Programs ..................................................................................... 48 3.12 Action Area ................................................................................................................ 49 4.0 Status of the Species .................................................................................................. 49 4.1 Species Not Likely to Be Adversely Affected ........................................................... 51 4.1.1 Hawksbill Sea Turtles .......................................................................................... 51 4.1.2 Shortnose Sturgeon .............................................................................................. 51 4.1.3 Smalltooth Sawfish DPS ...................................................................................... 51 4.1.4 Corals ................................................................................................................... 52 4.1.5 Johnson's Sea Grass ............................................................................................. 53 4.1.6 Sperm Whale ........................................................................................................ 53 4.1.7 Blue Whale........................................................................................................... 54 4.1.8 Right Whale Critical Habitat ............................................................................... 54 4.1.9 Atlantic Salmon Critical Habitat .......................................................................... 55 4.2 Status of Large Whales .............................................................................................. 55 4.2.1 North Atlantic Right Whale ................................................................................. 56 i May 20, 2013 DRAFT -- NOT FINAL 4.2.2 Humpback Whale................................................................................................. 65 4.2.3 Fin Whale ............................................................................................................. 71 4.2.4 Sei Whale ............................................................................................................. 74 4.3 Status of Sea Turtles .................................................................................................. 77 4.3.1 NWA DPS of Loggerhead Sea Turtle .................................................................. 78 4.3.2 Leatherback Sea Turtle ........................................................................................ 94 4.3.3 Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtle .................................................................................. 105 4.3.4 Green Sea Turtles ............................................................................................... 110 4.4 Status of Atlantic Sturgeon ...................................................................................... 117 4.4.1 Status of Gulf of Maine DPS ............................................................................. 129 4.4.2 Status of New York Bight DPS ......................................................................... 134 4.4.3 Status of Chesapeake Bay DPS.......................................................................... 138 4.4.4 Status of the Carolina DPS ................................................................................ 140 4.4.5 Status of South Atlantic DPS ............................................................................. 144 4.5 Status of Gulf of Maine DPS of Atlantic Salmon .................................................... 149 4.5.1 Species Description ............................................................................................ 150 4.5.2 Disease and Predators ........................................................................................ 152 4.5.3 Status and Trends of Atlantic Salmon ............................................................... 153 4.5.4 Factors Affecting Recovery of Atlantic Salmon ................................................ 155 5.0 Environmental Baseline ......................................................................................... 159 5.1 Federal Actions with Formal or Early Section 7 Consultations .............................. 159 5.1.1 Federal Fisheries Not Part of the Proposed Action ............................................. 161 5.1.2 Federal Fisheries Included in This Opinion ........................................................ 168 5.1.3 Hopper Dredging ............................................................................................... 176 5.1.4 Research and Other Permitted Activities ........................................................... 178 5.1.5 Vessel Activity and Military Operations ........................................................... 183 5.2 Non-Federally Regulated Fisheries .......................................................................... 184 5.2.1 Atlantic Croaker ................................................................................................. 185 5.2.2 Weakfish ............................................................................................................ 186 5.2.3 Whelk ................................................................................................................. 186 5.2.4 Crab .................................................................................................................... 187 5.2.5 American Lobster Trap and Fish Trap Fisheries ............................................... 188 5.2.6 Northern Shrimp ................................................................................................ 189 5.2.7 American Shad ..................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Presque Isle, Maine Comprehensive Plan a Guide to Future Growth and Resource Conservation 2007 Presque Isle (Me.)
    The University of Maine DigitalCommons@UMaine Maine Town Documents Maine Government Documents 2007 Presque Isle, Maine Comprehensive Plan a Guide to Future Growth and Resource Conservation 2007 Presque Isle (Me.) Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/towndocs Repository Citation Presque Isle (Me.), "Presque Isle, Maine Comprehensive Plan a Guide to Future Growth and Resource Conservation 2007" (2007). Maine Town Documents. 760. https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/towndocs/760 This Plan is brought to you for free and open access by DigitalCommons@UMaine. It has been accepted for inclusion in Maine Town Documents by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@UMaine. For more information, please contact [email protected]. City of Presque Isle, Maine 2007 Comprehensive Plan Table of Contents I.) Vision Statement – summarizes desired community character in terms of economic development, natural & cultural resources, transportation, land uses and Community role within the region.- Page 1 II.) Public Participation Summary- Planning Board efforts to involve public, information sources (input from City departments, City committees, other state & local agencies & public hearings) – Page 1 III.) Regional Coordination- Local involvement in NMDC activities & efforts, L.E.A.D. activities & US Rt.#1 Corridor Management efforts, as example-Page 1 IV.) Core Data, Information & Analysis • Future Land Use Plan - Pages 2 to 16 • Land Use - Pages 17 to 47 • Population & Demographics - Pages 48 to 59 • Economy - Pages 60 to 75 • Housing - Pages 76 to 91 • Transportation - Pages 92 to 121 • Recreation - Pages 122 to 137 • Natural Resources - Pages 138 to 169 i. Water Resources ii. Critical Natural Resources iii.
    [Show full text]
  • Somerset County
    201 6 Shared Community Health Needs Assessment Somerset County Prepared by: Market Decisions Research and Hart Consulting, Inc., October, 2015 [updated 2/29/2016] Somerset County Acknowledgements The following report is funded through the generous support and contributions of the Maine Shared Health Needs Assessment Planning Process Collaborative: The report was prepared by the research teams at Market Decisions Research of Portland, Maine, Hart Consulting Inc. of Gardiner, Maine, and the Maine Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Substantial segments of the narrative sections were adapted from the 2012 Maine State Health Assessment and significant analysis and research was conducted by epidemiologists at the Maine CDC and the University of Southern Maine’s Muskie School of Public Service. See end of the report for a list of contributors and collaborating organizations. Maine Shared Community Health Needs Assessment, 2015 © 2015 MaineGeneral Medical Center, subject to perpetual rights of use by Eastern Maine Healthcare Systems, MaineHealth, Central Maine Healthcare and Maine Center for Disease Control and Prevention, an office of the Department of Health and Human Services. Note: Originally, this report was dated 2015 on the cover. However, it has been changed to 2016 to reflect the fiscal years of the organizations that have been involved. Somerset County Table of Contents Table of Tables ............................................................................................................................. iii How to Use
    [Show full text]
  • OMB Bulletin No. 20-01 Appendix
    EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503 March 6, 2020 0MB BULLETIN NO. 20-01 TO THE HEADS OF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND ESTABLISHMENTS SUBJECT: Revised Delineations of Metropolitan Statistical Areas, Micropolitan Statistical Areas, and Combined Statistical Areas, and Guidance on Uses of the Delineations of These Areas 1. Purpose: This Bulletin and its Appendix ("the Bulletin") establish revised delineations for the Nation's Metropolitan Statistical Areas, Micropolitan Statistical Areas, and Combined Statistical Areas. The Bulletin also provides delineations of Metropolitan Divisions as well as delineations of New England City and Town Areas. This Bulletin and updates and supersedes 0MB Bulletin No. 18-04, issued on September 14, 2018. The Attachment to the Bulletin, "Updates to Statistical Areas," provides detailed information on the update of statistical areas since that time. The delineations of the statistical areas shown in the Appendix's nine lists take effect immediately. These delineations reflect the Standards for Delineating Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas that the Office of Management and Budget (0MB) published on June 28, 2010, (75 FR 37246) and the application of those standards to Census Bureau population and journey-to-work data. The Bulletin also provides guidance on the use of the delineations of these statistical areas. 2. Background: Pursuant to 44 U.S.C. § 3504(e)(3), 31 U.S.C. § 1104(d), and Executive Order No. 10,253 (June 11, 1951), 0MB delineates Metropolitan Statistical Areas, Metropolitan Divisions, Micropolitan Statistical Areas, Combined Statistical Areas, and New England City and Town Areas for use in Federal statistical activities.
    [Show full text]
  • CRA Evaluation Charter No. (703786)
    PUBLIC DISCLOSURE March 23, 2020 COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT ACT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION First Federal Savings and Loan Association of Bath Charter Number: 703786 125 Front Street Bath, ME 04530-2610 Office of the Comptroller of the Currency 99 Summer Street Suite 1400 Boston, MA 02110 NOTE: This document is an evaluation of this institution's record of meeting the credit needs of its entire community, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods, consistent with safe and sound operation of the institution. This evaluation is not, and should not be construed as, an assessment of the financial condition of this institution. The rating assigned to this institution does not represent an analysis, conclusion, or opinion of the federal financial supervisory agency concerning the safety and soundness of this financial institution. Charter Number: 703786 Table of Contents Overall Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) Rating…………………………………………... 1 Description of Institution………….……………………………………………………………... 3 Scope of the Evaluation…………………………………………………………………………. 4 Discriminatory or Other Illegal Credit Practices Review……………………….………………. 6 Lending Test ……………………………………………………………………………………. 7 State Rating…….………………………………………………………………………………...10 Appendix A: Scope of Examination………….…………………………………………………A1 Appendix B: Summary of State Ratings…………………………………...................................B1 Appendix C: Definitions and Common Abbreviations………………………………………….C1 Appendix D: Tables of Performance Data………………………………………………………D1 i Charter Number: 703786 Overall CRA Rating Institution’s CRA Rating: This institution is rated Outstanding. The Lending Test is rated: Outstanding. The major factors that support this rating include: • The Lending Test (LT) rating is based on the State of Maine (ME) rating which stems from the First Federal Savings and Loan Association of Bath’s (“Bath” or “the Bank”) record of performance in meeting the credit needs of its ME-based assessment area (AA) during the CRA evaluation period of January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2019.
    [Show full text]
  • Five Year Assessment of Maine's Ambient Air Monitoring Network
    MAINE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION BUREAU OF AIR QUALITY FIVE-YEAR ASSESSMENT OF MAINE’S AMBIENT AIR MONITORING NETWORK May 19, 2021 Every five years, each state must prepare and submit to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) an assessment of its monitoring network, which considers the following: • Whether the network meets required monitoring objectives; • Whether new sites are needed; • Whether existing sites are no longer needed and can be terminated; and • Whether any new technologies are appropriate for incorporation into the ambient air monitoring network. The assessment must also consider the following: • The ability of existing and proposed sites to support air quality characterization for areas with relatively high populations of susceptible individuals (e.g., children with asthma); and • The effect on data users other than the agency itself for any sites that are being proposed for discontinuance. This document is the current Five-Year Network Assessment for Maine. Comments were accepted until September 30, 2020, and could be submitted either electronically or in hard copy to: Andy Johnson OR Don Darling Director, Division of Air Quality Manager, Air Monitoring Section Assessment Maine Department of Environmental Maine Department of Environmental Protection Protection Bureau of Air Quality Bureau of Air Quality 17 SHS 17 SHS Augusta, Maine 04333-0017 Augusta, Maine 04333-0017 [email protected] [email protected] (207) 480-0906 (207) 745-4038 (207) 287-7641 (fax) (207) 287-7641 (fax) Table of Contents Executive Summary……………………………………………………………….…................ 1 Regulatory Background………………………………………………………………………. 4 Maine’s Monitoring Network: Background and Overview…………………………………. 6 Maine Specific Health Impact Evaluations…………………………………………………... 7 Maine’s Criteria Pollutants Monitoring Network Evaluation……………………………...
    [Show full text]
  • Georges Bank Area
    2nd SAW Document #11 WOODS HOLE LABORATORY REFERENCE DOCUMENT NO. 84-31 Preliminary Assessment of White Hake A PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT OF WHITE HAKE IN THE GULF OF ~~INE - GEORGES BANK AREA 1984 by Jay Burnett, Stephen H. Clark, and Loretta O'Brien National Marine Fisheries Service Northeast Fisheries Center Woods Hole Laboratory Woods Hole, Massachusetts 02543 i SUMMARY This report reviews biological and fishery-related information for white hake [Urophycis tenuis (M.)] off the northeast coast of the USA. White hake are most abundant in deeper muddy basin areas within the Gulf of Maine, although seasonal movements between inshore and offshore areas have been documented for both juveniles and adults. Maturity data suggest protracted spawning from November to April; however, only 7% of. the males and 2% of the females examined were classified as ripe fish. Total length at 50% maturity (LSO) was found to be about 42' cm (17 inches) for both sexes. A preliminary analysis of length-at-age data collected during NEFC surveys suggests growth rates similar to those reported for white hake in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Commercial landings from the Gulf of Maine - Georges Bank region averaged 4,700 mt during 1975-1980 and have- since increased to about 7,000 mt in 1983; the projected USA total for 1984 is about 6,500 mt. Since 1960, USA vessels have accounted for 92% of the total, with most of the remainder being taken by Canada. Most of the USA catch has been taken by bottom trawling in the western Gulf of Maine during summer.
    [Show full text]
  • Population & Demographics
    APPENDIX Population & APPENDIX: POPULATION & Demographics DEMOGRAPHICS The most important resource available to a community is its people. While the City is often thought of as a single entity, it is a dynamic network of established and new neighborhoods, employment centers, commercial areas, and school districts that are fundamental affected by population and demographic changes. EXISTING CONDITIONS AND TRENDS Population Population change is the result of two factors: natural increase (the difference between births and deaths) and net migration (the change in people moving to/from the community). Most local population growth typically occurs from individuals and families moving to a community, usually for economic opportunity or quality of life reasons. The City’s population has undergone several phases throughout its history. The City experienced steady – and in some decades dramatic – growth through the 19th and early 20th centuries, reaching its peak population of 77,634 residents in 1950. The subsequent three decades were marked by a sharp decline in population. This decline is consistent with several national trends that destabilized many U.S. cities. These include a rapid post World War II housing boom and suburbanization of outlying, formerly rural communities as well as large-scale urban renewal projects that reconfigured and sometimes removed existing urban neighborhoods. In the past three decades, however, the City’s population has stabilized and appears to be entering a new phase of renewed growth. DEMOGRAPHIC HIGHLIGHTS • Portland is the largest city in Maine, with a 2010 population of 66,194 and a 2015 estimate by the US Census Bureau of 66,681 (nearly double that of Lewiston, the state’s second largest City).
    [Show full text]
  • Penley Brook WATERSHED DESCRIPTION Waterbody Facts This TMDL Applies to a 1.57 Mile Section of Penley Brook, Segment ID: Located in the City of Auburn, Maine
    TMDL Summary Appendix 666---191919 Penley Brook WATERSHED DESCRIPTION Waterbody Facts This TMDL applies to a 1.57 mile section of Penley Brook, Segment ID: located in the City of Auburn, Maine. The impaired segment ME0104000210_413R02 of Penley Brook begins in the western portion of the City: Auburn, ME watershed just east of I-95 and flows east through a largely agricultural area, crossing Penley Corner Road and Riverside County: Androscoggin Drive before flowing into the Androscoggin River. The Impaired Segment Length: Penley Brook watershed covers an area of 0.66 square miles. 1.57 miles Runoff from agricultural land located throughout the Classification: Class B watershed is likely the largest source of nonpoint source 2 (NPS) pollution to Penley Brook. Runoff from cultivated Direct Watershed: 0.66 mi lands, active hay lands, and pasture can transport nitrogen (422.4 acres) and phosphorus to the nearest section of the stream. Impairment Listing Cause: The Penley Brook watershed is predominately non- Dissolved Oxygen developed (94.8%). Forested areas (22.1%) within the Watershed Agricultural Land watershed absorb and filter pollutants helping protect Use: 72.69% both water quality in the stream and stream channel stability. Major Drainage Basin: Androscoggin River Non-forested areas within the watershed are predominantly agricultural (72.7%) and are located throughout the central portion of the watershed. Developed areas (5.2%) with impervious surfaces in close proximity to the steam may impact water quality. Penley Brook is on Maine’s 303(d) list of Impaired Streams (Maine DEP, 2013). Watershed Land Uses Definitions • Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) represents the total Agriculture amount of pollutants that a waterbody can receive and still Forest meet water quality standards.
    [Show full text]
  • Maine 2017 Annual Air Monitoring Plan
    Annual Air Monitoring Plan 2018 Maine Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Air Quality July 5, 2017 Introduction The Maine Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) Bureau of Air Quality (BAQ) operates and maintains a network of air samplers in the state to evaluate ambient air quality in Maine. The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) and the Federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requires state and local agencies to conduct ambient air quality monitoring to determine whether the ambient concentrations of any of several pollutants in the state exceed established standards. The data also documents trends that may be occurring in the concentrations of these pollutants, supports the Maine DEP in providing background information for the licensing program and, when necessary, the development of pollution control strategies. In recent years, the BAQ has invested in automated polling and reporting technology to provide continuous hourly data to the public and scientific community that is used for timely forecasting of regional air quality conditions for Maine citizens and visitors to the state The Maine BAQ has been monitoring air quality in Maine since the DEP was formed in 1972, working in partnership with the EPA to uphold the tenets of the 1970 Clean Air Act and subsequent amendments. The BAQ is responsible for most of the ambient air quality monitors located in Maine. Additional monitoring is conducted by several federal agencies such as the EPA, the National Park Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as well as by several of the Indian tribes in Maine. In 2007, Maine BAQ entered into a Primary Quality Assurance Organization (PQAO) agreement with the Aroostook Band of Micmacs, the Passamaquoddy Tribe at Pleasant Point and the Penobscot Indian Nation in Maine to conduct air monitoring with shared quality assurance plans, practices and procedures.
    [Show full text]
  • The Political Geography of Maine's Economic Future: Cities and Their Metro Regions
    Maine Policy Review Volume 29 Issue 2 Maine's Bicentennial 2020 The Political Geography of Maine’s Economic Future: Cities and Their Metro Regions Joseph W. McDonnell [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr Part of the Demography, Population, and Ecology Commons, and the Urban Studies and Planning Commons Recommended Citation McDonnell, Joseph W. "The Political Geography of Maine’s Economic Future: Cities and Their Metro Regions." Maine Policy Review 29.2 (2020) : 102 -110, https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/ vol29/iss2/14. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by DigitalCommons@UMaine. CITIES AND THEIR METRO REGIONS The Political Geography of Maine’s Economic Future: Cities and Their Metro Regions by Joseph W. McDonnell The rise of cities is not unique to Abstract Maine. Migration into cities follows a Following a global trend that now has more than 55 percent of the world popu- global trend that now has more than 55 lation living in cities and their metro regions, Maine’s economic and population percent of the world’s population living in growth are driven by our cities and the surrounding metro areas. The trend, how- cities. The United Nations projects that ever, will not meet Maine’s goal to attract a future workforce and reduce green- percentage will increase to 68 percent over house gas emissions without regional solutions to housing, education, homeless- the next 30 years (UN DESA 2018). ness, climate adaptation, and public transportation. Meeting these challenges Cities once had a reputation for noise, will require a loosening of attitudes about local control and an embracing of re- crime, poverty, and pollution—as places gional solutions to the critical issues inhibiting Maine’s economic growth.
    [Show full text]
  • An Action Plan for Promoting Sustainable Prosperity in Maine
    C HARTING M AINE’ S F UTURE An Action Plan for Promoting Sustainable Prosperity and Quality Places Brookings Institution Metropolitan Policy Program C HARTING M AINE’ S F UTURE An Action Plan for Promoting Sustainable Prosperity and Quality Places THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION METROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM © 2006 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS any, many people and organizations contributed to • Northern Maine (Caribou, Houlton, Ft. Kent). Patricia this project, so the Metropolitan Policy Program at Boucher, Workforce Investment Board of Aroostook and MBrookings has incurred many debts over the last Washington Counties; Jim Brown, City of Presque Isle; 18 months. Enlarging our sense of obligation is the uncom- Robert Clark, Northern Maine Development mon generosity and community-mindedness of Maine people. Corporation; Allen Deeves, Presque Isle Chamber of We owe our first debt to GrowSmart Maine, which invited Commerce; John Edgecomb, Aroostook Municipal this report, raised the money to enable it, and has begun to Association; Mike Eisensmith, Northern Maine mobilize an unprecedented array of Maine citizens and con- Development Corporation; Ryan Pelletier, Town of stituencies to support this report’s recommendations. St. Agatha; Rod Thompson, Maine Small Business In particular, we want to thank Alan Caron, GrowSmart’s Development Centers / NMDC president and CEO, who in ways large and small has tire- lessly advocated for the importance of this work. All along • Down East (Eastport). Nancy Asante, Town of Perry; Alan has seen the potential for Maine people to rally around Bud Finch, City of Eastport; Marged Higginson, Eastport a bold and appealing agenda that responds to Mainers’ desire for Pride; Joyce Weber, Eastport Arts Center; Lora for both prosperity and a superlative quality of place, and we Whelan, Eastport for Pride hope we have provided that.
    [Show full text]
  • An Interdisciplinary Review of Atlantic Cod Stock Structure in the Western
    NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-XXX An Interdisciplinary Review of Atlantic Cod (Gadus morhua) Stock Structure in the Western North Atlantic Ocean Richard S McBride1 and R Kent Smedbol2 (Editors) 1 National Marine Fisheries Service, 166 Water Street, Woods Hole, MA 02543 2 Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Government of Canada US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service Northeast Fisheries Science Center Woods Hole, Massachusetts Month Year TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2 1. INTRODUCTION 4 A brief history 4 The ACSSWG 7 Outline of this report 8 References Cited 8 2. FISHERY MANAGEMENT (US/TRANSBOUNDARY) CONTEXT Error! Bookmark not defined. 3. EARLY LIFE HISTORY – SPAWNING TO SETTLEMENT Error! Bookmark not defined. 4. GENETIC MARKERS Error! Bookmark not defined. 5. LIFE HISTORY Error! Bookmark not defined. 6. NATURAL MARKERS Error! Bookmark not defined. 7. APPLIED MARKERS Error! Bookmark not defined. 8. FISHERMEN’S ECOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE Error! Bookmark not defined. 9. SYNTHESIS Error! Bookmark not defined. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 12 APPENDIX A 13 APPENDIX B 13 APPENDIX C Error! Bookmark not defined. APPENDIX D 13 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY An Atlantic Cod Stock Structure Working Group (ACSSWG) was formed in early 2018 to inventory and summarize all relevant peer-review information about stock structure of Atlantic cod in NAFO Divisions 5 and 6 and interactions with 4X. In addition, new data or information was also internally reviewed by the ACSSWG and included as appropriate. Additional feedback was gained from three engagement sessions, two sponsored by New England Fishery Management Council and New Hampshire Sea Grant and one sponsored by the Maine Fishermen’s Forum, each of which added local ecological knowledge into the ACSSWG deliberations.
    [Show full text]