FINAL Amendment 10 to the 2006 Consolidated Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan: Essential Fish Habitat and Environmental Assessment
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
FINAL Amendment 10 to the 2006 Consolidated Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan: Essential Fish Habitat and Environmental Assessment Office of Sustainable Fisheries Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Management Division September 1, 2017 Abstract Proposed Action: Amendment 10 to the 2006 Consolidated Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan to Update Essential Fish Habitat Delineations and Life History Descriptions for Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Type of statement: Environmental Assessment (EA) Lead Agency: National Marine Fisheries Service: Office of Sustainable Fisheries For further information: Highly Migratory Species Management Division (F/SF1) 1315 East-West Highway Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 Phone: (301)-427-8503; Fax: 301-713-1917 Abstract: The National Marine Fisheries Service is amending the 2006 Consolidated Atlantic Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Fishery Management Plan (FMP) based on a review of data and literature relevant to Atlantic HMS Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). The purpose of the amendment is to update existing HMS EFH, designate new and update existing Habitat Areas of Particular Concern for some HMS, and analyze the adverse effects of fishing on EFH consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) and other relevant Federal laws, including the National Environmental Policy Act. The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires a review and updating of EFH FMP components based on new scientific or other relevant information at least once every five years and an update of the EFH designations accordingly. This final amendment presents the the results and underlying environmental impacts analysis of the statutorly required review and update of EFH for all federally managed Atlantic HMS. New information, including information on the biology, distribution, habitat requirements, life history characteristics, migratory patterns, spawning, pupping, and nursery areas of Atlantic HMS were considered when updating EFH in this final amendment. ii Table of Contents Abstract ..................................................................................................................... ii Table of Contents ..................................................................................................... iii List of Figures ......................................................................................................... viii List of Tables ............................................................................................................ix 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 10 1.1 Background .................................................................................................... 10 1.2 Management History ...................................................................................... 10 1.3 Approach ........................................................................................................ 13 1.4 Purpose of and Need for Action ..................................................................... 14 1.4.1 Purpose ……………………………………………………………………15 1.4.2 Need……. .......................................................................................... 15 1.5 Scope of the NEPA Analysis .......................................................................... 15 2 SUMMARY OF THE ALTERNATIVES ................................................................... 18 2.1 Essential Fish Habitat Designations ............................................................... 19 Alternative 1: ........................................................................................................... 19 Alternative 2: ........................................................................................................... 19 2.2 Habitat Area of Particular Concern (HAPC) Designations .............................. 20 Alternative 3: Evaluate and, if warranted, modify current HAPCs for Bluefin Tuna 23 Alternative 3a: No action - Retain current HAPCs for Bluefin Tuna ...................... 23 Alternative 4: Evaluate and, if warranted, modify current HAPCs for sandbar sharks….. ....................................................................................................... 25 Alternative 4a: No action - Retain current HAPC sandbar shark ................. 25 Alternative 4b: (Preferred) Modify current HAPC for sandbar shark ........... 25 Alternative 5: Evaluate and, if warranted, establish new HAPCs for Lemon Sharks….. ...................................................................................................... 27 Alternative 5a: No action - Do not create a HAPC for lemon sharks ........... 27 Alternative 5b: (Preferred) Create a new HAPC for lemon sharks between Jupiter Inlet, Florida and Cape Canaveral, Florida ............................ 27 Alternative 5c: Create a new HAPC for lemon sharks in the vicinity of Cape Canaveral, Florida ............................................................................. 28 Alternative 5d: Create a new HAPC for lemon sharks in the vicinity of Jupiter Inlet, Florida ....................................................................................... 29 Alternative 6: Evaluate and, if warranted, establish new HAPCs for Sand Tiger Sharks…. ....................................................................................................... 31 Alternative 6a: No action - Do not create HAPCs for Sand Tiger Sharks .... 31 Alternative 6b: (Preferred) Create two HAPCs: (1) Delaware Bay for all life stages of sand tiger shark and (2) Plymouth, Kingston, Duxbury (PKD) bay system in coastal Massachusetts for neonates/YOY and juvenile sand tiger sharks ............................................................................... 31 2.3 Alternatives Considered but not Further Analyzed ......................................... 33 iii 2.3.1 HAPC for Larval Billfishes ................................................................. 33 2.3.2 HAPC for White Shark ....................................................................... 34 2.4 Literature Cited ............................................................................................... 35 3 DESCRIPTION OF THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT .......................................... 37 3.1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 37 3.2 Atlantic Ocean ................................................................................................ 38 3.2.1 Coastal and Estuarine Habitat ........................................................... 38 3.2.2 Continental Shelf and Slope Areas .................................................... 40 3.2.3 Pelagic Environment ......................................................................... 42 3.3 Gulf of Mexico ................................................................................................ 44 3.3.1 Coastal and Estuarine Habitats ......................................................... 44 3.3.2 Continental Shelf and Slope Areas .................................................... 45 3.3.3 Physical Oceanography..................................................................... 45 3.4 U.S. Caribbean ............................................................................................... 46 3.4.1 Coastal and Estuarine Habitats ......................................................... 47 3.4.2 Insular Shelf and Slope Areas ........................................................... 48 3.4.3 Physical Oceanography..................................................................... 48 3.5 References ..................................................................................................... 49 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE ALTERNATIVES ....................... 51 4.1 Essential Fish Habitat Designations ............................................................... 52 4.1.1 Summary and Comparison of EFH Delineation Alternatives ............. 53 4.2 Habitat Areas of Particular Concern ............................................................... 54 4.2.1 Summary and Comparison of HAPC Alternatives ............................. 55 4.3 Preferred Alternatives ..................................................................................... 76 4.4 Impacts on Essential Fish Habitat .................................................................. 76 4.5 Impacts on Protected Resources ................................................................... 77 4.6 Environmental Justice Concerns .................................................................... 77 4.7 Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) ........................................................ 77 4.8 Cumulative Impacts ........................................................................................ 78 4.9 Literature Cited ............................................................................................... 78 5 ANALYSIS OF FISHING AND NON-FISHING EFFECTS ...................................... 80 5.1 Analysis of Fishing Effects ............................................................................. 80 5.1.1 HMS Fisheries Gear Effects .............................................................. 80 5.1.2 Forage Species ................................................................................. 83 5.1.3 Actions to Minimize the Adverse Effects of Fishing on EFH .............. 83