DOCSLIB.ORG

Final EA on Gear Changes for the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery's

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

GEAR CHANGES FOR THE PACIFIC COAST GROUNDFISH FISHERY’S TRAWL CATCH SHARE PROGRAM Environmental Assessment Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Analysis Regulatory Impact Review Initial Regulatory Flexibility Review Prepared by National Marine Fisheries Service 7600 Sand Point Way NE, BIN C15700 Seattle, WA 98115-0070 206-526-6150 December 2018 Abstract ABSTRACT This document evaluates the proposed action to revise and remove trawl gear regulations for the Pacific Coast groundfish fishery’s trawl catch share program, including trawl gear configuration and gear use. Pre-trawl rationalization regulations applied to the entire fleet may no longer be appropriate for managing individuals operating under the incentives provided in the rationalized portion of the Pacific Coast groundfish fishery. Incentives of the catch share program include resources allocated to individuals (individual fishing quota [IFQ]) or to cooperatives, 100 percent at-sea and shoreside monitoring, and individuals or cooperatives held accountable for the consequences of their decisions. The Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) selected the following as its preferred alternatives under this proposed action. • Eliminate minimum mesh size requirements for groundfish trawls. • Update the regulatory language for measuring mesh sizes to include knotless webbing. • Eliminate groundfish trawl codend restrictions (e.g., allow double-wall codends). • Modify the selective flatfish trawl (SFFT) definition to include two- or four-seam nets (coastwide), and eliminate the SFFT requirement for groundfish bottom trawl shoreward of the trawl rockfish conservation area (RCA) north of 40o10' N. latitude. A NMFS sub-option to this alternative would eliminate the requirement to use SFFT north of 42o N. latitude, but retain the requirement to use SFFT shoreward of the trawl RCA between 42o N. latitude and 40o10ꞌ N. latitude shoreward of the trawl RCA. • Eliminate chafing gear restrictions for groundfish trawl. • Allow shoreside IFQ trawl vessels to carry and use multiple types of groundfish trawl gear on the same trip. • Allow shoreside IFQ trawl vessels to fish in multiple IFQ management areas on the same trip and the same haul. • Allow shoreside IFQ groundfish trawl vessels to bring a haul on board before all catch from the previous haul has been stowed. The purpose of this action is to provide more flexibility in the configuration and use of gear for participants in the trawl rationalization program, while at the same time ensuring that conservation objectives are met. Such flexibility is expected to foster innovation and allow for more optimal harvest operations. Benefits may include increased efficiency through reduced costs and increased revenues. Gear Changes for the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery’s Trawl Catch Share Program December 2018 Final EA / MSA / RIR / IRFA i Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................................................. I ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................................................. XI 1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 The Proposed Action ......................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Purpose and Need for the Action ....................................................................................................... 1-2 1.2.1 Purpose ................................................................................................................................... 1-2 1.2.2 Need ....................................................................................................................................... 1-2 1.2.3 Description of the Management Area .................................................................................... 1-3 1.3 Background .................................................................................................................................. 1-5 1.3.1 Overview of the Groundfish Fisheries ................................................................................... 1-5 1.3.2 Implementation of the Trawl Rationalization Program – A Historical Perspective of the Groundfish Trawl Fishery and Associated Regulations ......................................................... 1-6 1.4 Public Participation and the Scoping Process .................................................................................... 1-9 1.4.1 Council and Agency Scoping Results .................................................................................. 1-11 1.4.1.1 Response to the NOI and Public Input at Council Meetings ................................... 1-12 1.4.1.2 Public Comments on the Draft EA and the Proposed Rule ..................................... 1-12 1.5 New Information and Additional Analyses Relevant to the Development of this EA ..................... 1-12 2 ALTERNATIVES ..................................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Minimum Mesh Size (Issue A) .......................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Measuring Mesh Size (Issue B) ......................................................................................................... 2-3 2.3 Codend Regulations (Issue C) ........................................................................................................... 2-5 2.4 Selective Flatfish Trawl (Issue D) ..................................................................................................... 2-5 2.5 Chafing Gear (Issue E) .................................................................................................................... 2-10 2.6 Multiple Trawl Gears on Board (Issue F) ........................................................................................ 2-13 2.7 Fishing in Multiple IFQ Management Areas (Issue G).................................................................... 2-16 2.8 Bringing a New Haul on Board before Previous Catch is Stowed (Issue H) ................................. 2-20 2.9 Summary of Council’s Preferred Alternatives and NMFS Sub-option 1 ......................................... 2-21 2.10 Alternatives Considered but Rejected .............................................................................................. 2-22 2.10.1 Removal of the SFFT Description from Regulations ........................................................... 2-22 2.10.2 Sub-options Associated with Alternative F3 (Multiple Gears Onboard) ............................. 2-22 2.10.3 Allow Year-round Use of Midwater Gear ............................................................................ 2-23 2.10.4 Use of Midwater Trawl Gear Inside the Trawl RCA South of 40o10ꞌ N. Latitude ............... 2-23 2.10.5 Allow the Targeting of Pacific Whiting with any Type of Trawl Gear................................ 2-23 2.10.6 Allowance to Move Fixed Gears Across Management Lines .............................................. 2-24 2.10.7 Fixed Gear Restrictions South of 36° N. Latitude................................................................ 2-24 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ................................................................................................................ 3-1 3.1 Physical Environment ........................................................................................................................ 3-1 3.1.1 Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) ................................................................................................. 3-1 3.1.2 Essential Fish Habitat Conservation Area (EFHCA) ............................................................. 3-3 3.1.3 Rockfish Conservation Area (RCA) ...................................................................................... 3-3 3.2 Biological Environment ..................................................................................................................... 3-4 3.2.1 Groundfish ............................................................................................................................. 3-5 3.2.1.1 Target Groundfish Species ........................................................................................ 3-5 3.2.1.2 Non-target Groundfish Species ............................................................................... 3-12 3.2.1.3 Discard Mortality of Target and Non-target Groundfish ........................................ 3-19 Gear Changes for the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery’s Trawl Catch Share Program December 2018 Final EA / MSA / RIR / IRFA iii Table of Contents 3.2.2 Prohibited Species ................................................................................................................ 3-23 3.2.2.1 Salmon .................................................................................................................... 3-23 3.2.2.2 Pacific Halibut ........................................................................................................ 3-27 3.2.2.3 Dungeness Crab ...................................................................................................... 3-27 3.2.3 Protected Species ................................................................................................................
Recommended publications
  • Federal Register/Vol. 82, No. 8/Thursday, January 12, 2017/Notices

    Federal Register/Vol. 82, No. 8/Thursday, January 12, 2017/Notices

    3726 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 2017 / Notices SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Washington, DC 20230 (or via the issuance, quota transfers, use caps, crab Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Internet at [email protected]). harvesting cooperatives, protections for Conservation and Management FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gulf of Alaska groundfish fisheries, Reauthorization Act established the CCC Requests for additional information or arbitration system, monitoring, by amending Section 302 (16 U.S.C. copies of the information collection economic data collection, and cost 1852) of the MSA. The committee instrument and instructions should be recovery fee collection. consists of the chairs, vice chairs, and directed to Sally Bibb, (907) 586–7389 II. Method of Collection executive directors of each of the eight or [email protected]. Regional Fishery Management Councils SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Respondents have a choice of either authorized by the MSA or other Council electronic or paper forms. Methods of members or staff. NMFS will host this I. Abstract submittal include online, email of meeting and provide reports to the CCC This request is for extension of a electronic forms, mail, and facsimile for its information and discussion. All currently approved information transmission of paper forms. sessions are open to the public. Updates collection. III. Data to this meeting will be provided in The king and Tanner crab fisheries in subsequent notices and additional the exclusive economic zone of the OMB Control Number: 0648–0514. information will be posted on http:// Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands, Alaska, Form Number: None. www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/management/ are managed under the Fishery Type of Review: Regular submission councils/ccc/ccc.htm when available.
  • Pacific Marine Fisheries Commission

    Pacific Marine Fisheries Commission

    32nd Annual Report of the PACIFIC MARINE FISHERIES COMMISSION FOR THE YEAR 1979 TO THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES AND TO THE GOVERNORS AND LEGISLATURES OF WASHINGTON, OREGON, CALIFORNIA, IDAHO, AND ALASKA Pacific Marine Fisheries Commission 528 S.W. Mill Street Portland, Oregon 97201 July 8, 1980 32nd Annual Report of the PACIFIC MARINE FISHERIES COMMISSION FOR THE YEAR 1979 PREFACE The Pacific Marine Fisheries Commission was created in 1947 with the consent of Congress. The Commission serves five member States: Alaska, California, Idaho, Oregon and Washington. The purpose of this Compact, as stated in its Goal and Objectives, is to promote the wise management, utilization, and development of fisheries of mutual concern, and to develop a joint program of protection, enhancement, and prevention of physical waste of such fisheries. The advent of the Fishery Conservation and Management Act {FCMA) of 1976 and amendments thereto has caused spectacular and continuing changes in the management of marine fisheries in the United States. The FCMA created the Fishery Conservation Zone (FCZ) between 3 and 200 nautical miles offshore, established 8 Regional Fishery Management Councils with authority to develop fishery management plans within the FCZ, and granted the Secretary of Commerce the power to regulate both domestic and foreign fishing fleets within the FCZ. The FCMA greatly modified fishery management roles at state, interstate, national and international levels. The Pacific Marine Fisheries Commission recognized early that its operational role would change as a result of possible functional overlaps with the two regional fishery management councils established on the Pacific Coast. On the one hand, the FCMA provides non-voting Council membership to the Executive Directors of the interstate Marine Fisheries Commissions, thus assuring active participation as the Councils deliberate on fishery matters of concern to the States.
  • Why International Catch Shares Won't Save Ocean Biodiversity

    Why International Catch Shares Won't Save Ocean Biodiversity

    Michigan Journal of Environmental & Administrative Law Volume 2 Issue 2 2013 Why International Catch Shares Won't Save Ocean Biodiversity Holly Doremus University of California, Berkeley Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjeal Part of the Environmental Law Commons, International Law Commons, International Trade Law Commons, and the Natural Resources Law Commons Recommended Citation Holly Doremus, Why International Catch Shares Won't Save Ocean Biodiversity, 2 MICH. J. ENVTL. & ADMIN. L. 385 (2013). Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjeal/vol2/iss2/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Michigan Journal of Environmental & Administrative Law by an authorized editor of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Doremus_Final_Web_Ready_FINAL_12May2013 7/18/2013 4:24 PM WHY INTERNATIONAL CATCH SHARES WON’T SAVE OCEAN BIODIVERSITY Holly Doremus* Skepticism about the efficacy and efficiency of regulatory approaches has produced a wave of enthusiasm for market-based strategies for dealing with environmental conflicts. In the fisheries context, the most prominent of these strategies is the use of “catch shares,” which assign specific proportions of the total allowable catch to individuals who are then free to trade them with others. Catch shares are now in wide use domestically within many nations, and there are increasing calls for implementation of internationally tradable catch shares. Based on a review of theory, empirical evidence, and two contexts in which catch shares have been proposed, this Article explains why international catch shares are not likely to arrest the decline of ocean biodiversity.
  • Fishery, Aquaculture, and Marine Mammal Issues in the 112Th Congress

    Fishery, Aquaculture, and Marine Mammal Issues in the 112Th Congress

    Fishery, Aquaculture, and Marine Mammal Issues in the 112th Congress Eugene H. Buck Specialist in Natural Resources Policy Harold F. Upton Analyst in Natural Resources Policy November 4, 2011 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R41613 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress Fishery, Aquaculture, and Marine Mammal Issues in the 112th Congress Summary Fish and marine mammals are important resources in open ocean and nearshore coastal areas; many federal laws and regulations guide their management as well as the management of their habitat. Aquaculture or fish farming enterprises seek to supplement food traditionally provided by wild harvests. Commercial and sport fishing are jointly managed by the federal government and individual states. States generally have jurisdiction within 3 miles of the coast. Beyond state jurisdiction and out to 200 miles in the federal exclusive economic zone (EEZ), the federal government (National Marine Fisheries Service, NMFS) manages fisheries under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA) through eight regional fishery management councils. Beyond 200 miles, the United States participates in international agreements relating to specific areas or species. The 112th Congress may oversee implementation of the MSFCMA as well as address individual habitat and management concerns for U.S. commercial and sport fisheries in an attempt to modify the balance between resource use and protection. Additional concerns might include providing additional
  • Catch Share Management in New England: Groundfish Sectors

    Catch Share Management in New England: Groundfish Sectors

    Catch Share Management in New England: Groundfish Sectors Kimberly Gordon Date: _________________________ Approved: ________________________________ Dr. Douglas Nowacek, Advisor Masters project submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the Master of Environmental Management degree in the Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences of Duke University May 2010 ABSTRACT: The management of domestic fisheries by the use of catch shares has become a topic of increased attention in recent years. The New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC) recently voted to adopt a catch share program for their Northeast Multispecies Fishery, proposing the addition of 17 new sectors which will manage a collective quota for the multispecies complex. This paper discusses the specifics of the Fishery Management Plan amendment as it pertains to the sector program and highlights three potential concerns that have been raised with regard to the implementation of sectors: insufficient monitoring, excessive consolidation, and impacts on communities. An exploration of actions taken by other regional Fishery Management Councils to address these concerns provides insight into potential management options that the New England Fishery Management Council may wish to consider as they move forward. These options are evaluated in the context of New England’s groundfish fishery, culminating in recommended actions that would enhance the ability of the management program to achieve its desired goals. Evaluation of the monitoring program in the British Columbia Groundfish Fishery reveals the potential benefits of full monitoring coverage for the Northeast Multispecies Sector program. Considering accumulation limits set in 10 domestic catch share programs to address consolidation reveals the need for the NEFMC to establish accumulation limits at a level commensurate with the management plan’s total objectives.
  • Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area APPENDICES

    Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area APPENDICES

    FMP for Groundfish of the BSAI Management Area Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area APPENDICES Appendix A History of the Fishery Management Plan ...................................................................... A-1 A.1 Amendments to the FMP ......................................................................................................... A-1 Appendix B Geographical Coordinates of Areas Described in the Fishery Management Plan ..... B-1 B.1 Management Area, Subareas, and Districts ............................................................................. B-1 B.2 Closed Areas ............................................................................................................................ B-2 B.3 PSC Limitation Zones ........................................................................................................... B-18 Appendix C Summary of the American Fisheries Act and Subtitle II ............................................. C-1 C.1 Summary of the American Fisheries Act (AFA) Management Measures ............................... C-1 C.2 Summary of Amendments to AFA in the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010 ................ C-2 C.3 American Fisheries Act: Subtitle II Bering Sea Pollock Fishery ............................................ C-4 Appendix D Life History Features and Habitat Requirements of Fishery Management Plan SpeciesD-1 D.1 Walleye pollock (Theragra calcogramma) ............................................................................
  • Seafood Traceability for Fisheries Compliance – Country- Level Support for Catch Documentation Schemes

    Seafood Traceability for Fisheries Compliance – Country- Level Support for Catch Documentation Schemes

    ISSN 2070-7010 FAO 619 FISHERIES AND AQUACULTURE TECHNICAL PAPER 619 Seafood traceability for fisheries compliance Country-level support for catch documentation schemes Seafood traceability for fisheries compliance This document explores ways in which individual countries in seafood supply chains can, in their capacities as coastal, flag, port, processing or end-market states, contribute to maximizing the effectiveness of catch documentation schemes. The focus is on the traceability of seafood consignments, but the authors also explore other important compliance mechanisms that are not directly related to traceability but – that support the effective implementation of catch documentation schemes at the Country-level support for catch documentation schemes country level. The document explains which traceability mechanisms are built into catch documentation schemes, and which additional support mechanisms must be provided by individual countries along seafood supply chains. The study finds that traditional fisheries monitoring, inspection and sanctioning mechanisms are of primary importance with regard to flag, coastal and end-market states, whereas effective country-level traceability mechanisms are critical of particular importance in port and processing states. ISBN 978-92-5-130040-4 978 9251 300404 FAO I8183EN/1/11.17 Cover photograph: Weighing and recording of catch to be transhipped off a longline fishing vessel. Noro, Solomon Islands. © Francisco Blaha (Photo serves an illustrative purpose and was not taken in the context of IUU fishing)
  • Reinitiated Biological Opinion on Groundfish Fisheries Affecting Humpback Whales

    Reinitiated Biological Opinion on Groundfish Fisheries Affecting Humpback Whales

    Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7(a)(2) Biological and Conference Opinion Continuing Operation of the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery (Reinitiation of consultation #NWR-2012-876) – Humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) NMFS Consultation Number: WCRO-2018-01378 ARN 151422WCR2018PR00213 Action Agency: The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Affected Species and NMFS’ Determinations: ESA-Listed Species Status Is Action Is Action Is Action Is Action Likely Likely to Likely To Likely to To Destroy or Adversely Jeopardize Adversely Adversely Affect the Species? Affect Modify Critical Species? Critical Habitat? Habitat? Humpback whale Endangered Yes No No No (Megaptera novaeangliae) – Central America DPS Humpback whale – Threatened Yes No No No Mexico DPS Consultation Conducted By: National Marine Fisheries Service, West Coast Region Issued By: _______________________________ Barry A. Thom Regional Administrator Date: October 26, 2020 ESA Section 7 Consultation Number WCRO-2018-01378 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 7 1.1. Background ..................................................................................................................................................................7 1.2. Consultation History ................................................................................................................................................ 7 1.3. Proposed Federal Action .......................................................................................................................................
  • Golden Tilefish Individual Fishing Quota Program 5-Year Review

    Golden Tilefish Individual Fishing Quota Program 5-Year Review

    Golden Tilefish Individual Fishing Quota Program 5-Year Review September 2017 Prepared by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council in cooperation with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Council Address NMFS Address Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council Greater Atlantic Regional Northeast Fisheries 800 North State Street, Fisheries Office Science Center Suite 201 55 Great Republic Drive 166 Water St Dover, DE 19901 Gloucester, MA 01930 Woods Hole, MA 02543 Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................ 2 LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................................... 4 LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................ 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ 6 1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 7 2.0 SUMMARY OF LEGAL REQUIREMENTS FOR PROGRAM REVIEW ............................ 8 3.0 PROGRAM GOALS AND OBJECTIVES .............................................................................. 9 4.0 HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROGRAM ..................................................... 9 4.1 PRE-GTF-IFQ STOCK STATUS AND MANAGEMENT HISTORY ...............................................
  • Guidance & Best Practices for Federally-Managed Fisheries

    Guidance & Best Practices for Federally-Managed Fisheries

    DISCUSSION DRAFT Electronic Monitoring and Electronic Reporting: Guidance & Best Practices for Federally-Managed Fisheries National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service in collaboration with Regional Fishery Management Councils Interstate Marine Fisheries Commissions State Marine Fisheries Agencies Tribes Commercial and Recreational Fishermen Fishing Community Organizations Environmental and Non-Governmental Organizations Electronic Technology Service Providers August 2013 EM/ER Discussion Draft Page ii Foreword What is a “Discussion Draft”? A discussion draft is a draft work in progress intended to stimulate reader thought and to extract reader’s reaction to a topic. The purpose is to mine reader’s additional ideas and contributions for completion of a final document. What is the intended use for this document? The objective of the discussion draft is to promote discussion and thinking within regions and across regions about electronic monitoring (EM) and electronic reporting (ER). Our collective goal for the final document, scheduled for completion this Fall, is to help managers and stakeholders consider the questions of how EM/ER tools can help contribute to a more cost-effective and sustainable collection of fishery dependent data in our federally- managed fisheries. Are these Mandatory Requirements? No. The guidance in the document is not prescriptive or regulatory in nature and is offered simply as preliminary advice and suggested best practices. As consideration of EM/ER proceeds in the eight Council regions it is hoped that additional feedback and guidance will be submitted for addition to this document over time as a “living document” to improve the knowledge base and information available to assist decision makers.
  • Strategic Framework for Fishery Monitoring and Catch Reporting in the Pacific Fisheries

    Strategic Framework for Fishery Monitoring and Catch Reporting in the Pacific Fisheries

    Strategic Framework for Fishery Monitoring and Catch Reporting in the Pacific Fisheries Fisheries and Oceans Canada Pacific Region Fisheries and Aquaculture Management Final March 2012 Table of Contents 1. Introduction 1 Policy context 1 Key drivers for change 2 The current status of monitoring and reporting 5 A risk‐based strategic framework 7 2. Goal and Guiding Principles 8 Goal 9 Principle 1: Conservation and sustainable use 9 Principle 2: Consistency and transparency 10 Principle 3: Tailored requirements 11 Principle 4: Shared accountability and access 11 Principle 5: Cost‐effectiveness 12 3. Strategic Approach 12 Strategy 1: Monitoring and Reporting Requirements 13 Strategy 2: Monitoring and reporting programs 16 Strategy 3: Data management 17 Strategy 4: Other program support 18 Strategy 5: Integrated Compliance Management 18 Strategy 6: Continual improvement 19 5. Summary and Next Steps 19 References 22 Appendix 1 24 Appendix 2 26 D 1. Introduction Faced with a myriad of challenges, including climate change, declining fish stocks, reduced economic viability, an evolving global marketplace, and heightened competition for aquatic resources, Canada’s Pacific fisheries are undergoing reform. Demands for sustainable management that considers the larger ecosystem, respects Aboriginal rights, strengthens engagement of resource users in decision‐making, and finds solutions to allocate scarce resources are putting pressure on governments and fishery interests alike. In many fisheries, the distrust of reported catch data and inconsistent monitoring has helped to fuel conflicts between harvesting groups. Reliable, timely and accessible fisheries information is the foundation of sustainable management. While the importance of good catch data is certainly not new to the Pacific Region, the worldwide trend towards sustainable fisheries and supporting management practices is calling for significant improvements in monitoring and reporting.
  • FISHERY ECOSYSTEM PLAN of the SOUTH ATLANTIC REGION VOLUME IV: THREATS to the SOUTH ATLANTIC ECOSYSTEM and RECOMMENDATIONS Apri

    FISHERY ECOSYSTEM PLAN of the SOUTH ATLANTIC REGION VOLUME IV: THREATS to the SOUTH ATLANTIC ECOSYSTEM and RECOMMENDATIONS Apri

    FISHERY ECOSYSTEM PLAN OF THE SOUTH ATLANTIC REGION VOLUME IV: THREATS TO THE SOUTH ATLANTIC ECOSYSTEM AND RECOMMENDATIONS April 2009 South Atlantic Fishery Management Council 4055 Faber Place Drive, Suite 201 North Charleston, South Carolina 29405 (843) 571-4366 / FAX (843) 769-4520 Toll Free (866) SAFMC-10 Email: [email protected] THIS IS A PUBLICATION OF THE SOUTH ATLANTIC FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL PURSUANT TO National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Award No. FNA05NMF4410004 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ABC Acceptable Biological Catch ACCSP Atlantic Coastal Cooperative Statistics Program ACE Ashepoo-Combahee-Edisto Basin National Estuarine Research Reserve APA Administrative Procedures Act AUV Autonomous Underwater Vehicle B A measure of stock biomass either in weight or other appropriate unit BMSYB The stock biomass expected to exist under equilibrium conditions when fishing at FMSY BOYB The stock biomass expected to exist under equilibrium conditions when fishing at FOY BCURRB The current stock biomass CEA Cumulative Effects Analysis CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CFMC Caribbean Fishery Management Council CPUE Catch per unit effort CRP Cooperative Research Program CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement EA Environmental Assessment EBM Ecosystem-Based Management EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone EFH Essential Fish Habitat EFH-HAPC Essential Fish Habitat - Habitat Area of Particular Concern EIS Environmental Impact Statement EPAP Ecosystem Principles Advisory Panel ESA Endangered Species Act