modifications to the harbor porpoise take reduction plan - Northeast ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

that is less likely to result in harbor porpoise entanglement. Large mesh gillnets include gillnets with a mesh size of seven to 18 inches (18 – 46 cm) and small mesh gillnets include gillnets with a mesh size of greater than five to less than seven inches (13 -18 cm). Gear specification requirements for Mid-Atlantic gillnets include measures specifying a net limit per net string, twine size, net size, number of nets per vessel, and tie-down provisions. The three management areas of the Mid-Atlantic component of the HPTRP also include seasonal gillnet closures to coincide with high abundances of harbor porpoises. 1.2.5.1 A Review of the Effectiveness of the HPTRP As discussed, prior to the development and implementation of the HPTRP in late 1998, the bycatch estimate of the GOM/BOF stock of harbor porpoises in U.S. gillnet fisheries exceeded 1,500 animals per year in the 1990s, well over the PBR of 483 animals (Table 1-1). Along with implementation of the HPTRP, restrictions implemented under various FMPs have closed areas to gillnet fishing and reduced or constrained effort in groundfish, monkfish, and dogfish gillnet fisheries. Harbor porpoise bycatch decreased to below the PBR level and remained below PBR between 2001, when the most recent HPTRP modification was implemented (66 FR 2336, January 11, 2001), and 2003. Despite these measures, harbor porpoise takes showed an increasing trend since 2001 (Figure 1-1) and have exceeded PBR each year since 2004 rather than approaching ZMRG. Figure 1-1: Annual harbor porpoise bycatch (harbor porpoise takes per metric tons of landings) compared to PBR from 1990-2006 Note that in the current HPTRP, the management areas in New England are termed “closure areas,” although some do not contain a complete closure period (for example, the Offshore Closure Area). During the December 2007 meeting, the HPTRT requested that NMFS modify the area names to avoid confusion. This proposed action will replace the term “closure” with the 8
term “management” in both New England and the Mid-Atlantic unless the area exists only as a complete closure (for example, the Cashes Ledge Closure Area). Therefore, for the remainder of this EA, the new naming scheme will be used except when describing Alternative 1 (No Action). NMFS analyzed post-HPTRP gillnet fishery observer data from different geographic areas to determine whether there were patterns in the overall increase in harbor porpoise bycatch in U.S. gillnet fisheries. New England Waters Within Appendix A, Section 5, Palka et al. (2009) review observer data collected in the GOM between January 1, 1999 and May 31, 2007. Observed harbor porpoise takes in this area and period occurred in gear targeting a variety of fish species, including American cod, monkfish, pollock, other flounders, spiny dogfish, unknown groundfish, and yellowtail flounder. The highest bycatch rates were observed in the Northeast Multispecies FMP Western GOM Closure Area (0.056 harbor porpoise takes per observed metric tons (takes/mtons) of landings) and the HPTRP Mid-Coast Management Area (0.052 takes/mtons). The unregulated area between the Massachusetts Bay Management Area and the Multispecies Western GOM Closure Area (proposed in this action as the Stellwagen Bank Management Area) also had a relatively high bycatch rate (0.040 takes/mtons). No takes were observed in the Offshore Management Area and no hauls were observed in the Northeast Closure Area. Bycatch was observed in each month of the year, with the highest bycatch rates observed in February and November. The number of vessels using at least 90% of the required number of pingers in times and areas when pingers were required varied throughout the time period examined. Approximately 75% of observed vessels used the proper number of pingers in 1999. This number dropped to a low of 10% in 2003 and 2004, and rose again to about 60% between January and May of 2007. Section 4 of Palka et al. (2009) (see Appendix A) analyzes observer data collected on gillnet vessels operating in waters south of Cape Cod from January 1, 1999 through May 31, 2007. Waters south of Cape Cod were defined as the waters within the Cape Cod South Management Area and waters surrounding this management area. All observed harbor porpoise takes occurred during the months from December through May in gear targeting monkfish or winter skate. The bycatch rate outside of the Cape Cod South Management Area (i.e., no pingers were required because this area currently is not regulated under the HPTRP) was 0.102 takes/mtons, about 50% higher than the bycatch rate observed in the Cape Cod South Management Area (0.066 takes/mtons), where pingers and closures are seasonally required. Of the 1,665 hauls observed in the Cape Cod South Management Area during the period and season that pingers are required, 47% were deployed with 90% or more of the required number of pingers. Forty percent did not have any pingers, and the remaining 13% had fewer than 90% of the required number of pingers. A trend of increasing bycatch rates was apparent for the area south of Cape Cod. Annual bycatch rates from January 1, 1999 through May 31, 2007 were: 0.028 takes/mtons (in 1999), 0.092 takes/mtons (in 2000), 0 takes/mtons (in 2001), 0.081 takes/mtons (in 2002), 0.046 9
Page 1 and 2: MODIFICATIONS TO THE HARBOR PORPOIS
Page 3 and 4: 4.2.1.3 Closed Area Model (CAM)....
Page 5 and 6: Table 4-7: Percent of vessel affect
Page 7 and 8: 1.0 INTRODUCTION This Environmental
Page 9 and 10: The proposed modifications to the H
Page 11 and 12: fishery through the Magnuson-Steven
Page 13: information if two separate meeting
Page 17 and 18: small mesh nets, although 35% of th
Page 19 and 20: In New England, as Figure 1-2 shows
Page 21 and 22: 2.0 SUMMARY OF MANAGEMENT ALTERNATI
Page 23 and 24: Additionally, a provision will be i
Page 25 and 26: � Tie-Downs: Spaced not more than
Page 27 and 28: Figure 2-1: Alternative 1 (No Actio
Page 29 and 30: 2.2.2 Alternative 2: Closures Alter
Page 31 and 32: Figure 2-3: Alternative 2 - Immedia
Page 33 and 34: 2.2.3 Alternative 3: Pingers This a
Page 35 and 36: Figure 2-5: Alternative 3 - Expande
Page 37 and 38: 2.2.4 Alternative 4: Preferred Alte
Page 39 and 40: modifications to this FMP are being
Page 41 and 42: takes/mtons of landings, with an an
Page 43 and 44: ycatch rate reflecting compliance w
Page 45 and 46: Figure 2-8: Alternative 4 (Preferre
Page 47 and 48: Figure 2-9: Alternative 4 (Preferre
Page 49 and 50: closure period in 2007. This sugges
Page 51 and 52: Figure 2-10: Alternative 5 - Modifi
Page 53 and 54: Figure 2-12: Alternative 5 - Modifi
Page 55 and 56: South of Cape Hatteras, North Carol
Page 57 and 58: would adversely affect EFH, HAPC, r
Page 59 and 60: 3.2.2.1 Marine Mammals The followin
Page 61 and 62: the region during the peak feeding
Page 63 and 64: Decomposed and/or unexamined animal
Page 65 and 66:
esulted in mortality. The other occ
Page 67 and 68:
Table 3-4: U.S. Fishery-Related Mor
Page 69 and 70:
The coastal morphotype of bottlenos
Page 71 and 72:
annual surveys conducted in August
Page 73 and 74:
Whitman and Payne, 1990; Barlas, 19
Page 75 and 76:
Caribbean. Although the population
Page 77 and 78:
Kemp’s ridleys occur primarily in
Page 79 and 80:
3.2.2.3 Protected Fish Two listed s
Page 81 and 82:
The Mid-Atlantic gillnet fishery, a
Page 83 and 84:
Table 3-8: Percentage of Northeast
Page 85 and 86:
the largest declines in total reven
Page 87 and 88:
Table 3-14: Average (2002-2006) dis
Page 89 and 90:
Table 4-1: A summary of average byc
Page 91 and 92:
4.1.1.2 Biological Effects of Alter
Page 93 and 94:
Closure Areas in New England, and t
Page 95 and 96:
which both closures and more string
Page 97 and 98:
The predicted bycatch rate ranges f
Page 99 and 100:
calculated based on the estimated b
Page 101 and 102:
Atlantic. If compliance is high, ha
Page 103 and 104:
of the OMA and SMA closure as well
Page 105 and 106:
However, a cost-effectiveness analy
Page 107 and 108:
The recent major changes implemente
Page 109 and 110:
To estimate the cost-effectiveness
Page 111 and 112:
Table 4-5: Percent change in profit
Page 113 and 114:
Table 4-7: Percent of vessel affect
Page 115 and 116:
Alt. 4-Both, Alt. 5-Both), a large
Page 117 and 118:
per year for Alt. 5-Pre to around $
Page 119 and 120:
(Table 4-12). However, for the alte
Page 121 and 122:
4.3 Cumulative Effects Analysis 4.3
Page 123 and 124:
also include disturbances to riveri
Page 125 and 126:
The past, present and reasonably fo
Page 127 and 128:
Carolina through Florida’s east c
Page 129 and 130:
ebuilding programs remained on trac
Page 131 and 132:
Amendment 5 to the Monkfish FMP is
Page 133 and 134:
Herring FMP Herring is an important
Page 135 and 136:
Cumulative Effects on Harbor Porpoi
Page 137 and 138:
effort reduction affects gillnet fi
Page 139 and 140:
Table 4-14: Summary of the effects
Page 141 and 142:
5.0 REGULATORY IMPACT REVIEW/ FINAL
Page 143 and 144:
The following alternatives are prop
Page 145 and 146:
Under Alternative 1 (No Action), th
Page 147 and 148:
6.3 Paperwork Reduction Act This ac
Page 149 and 150:
upon scientific information, analys
Page 151 and 152:
Proposed Action is significant unde
Page 153 and 154:
Although concerns have been express
Page 155 and 156:
2004). Additionally, the structures
Page 157 and 158:
suggesting the proposed changes to
Page 159 and 160:
Cox, T.M., A.J. Read, D. Swanner, K
Page 161 and 162:
Jacobs, S.R. and J.M. Terhune. 2000
Page 163 and 164:
Prepared by the New England Fishery
Page 165 and 166:
phocoena) bycatch and levels of com
Page 167 and 168:
Swingle, W.M., S.G. Barco, T.D. Pit
Page 169 and 170:
8.0 LIST OF ACRONYMS ALWTRP Atlanti
Page 171 and 172:
9.0 LIST OF PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUT
Page 173 and 174:
David Stevenson Marine Habitat Reso
Page 175 and 176:
Vicki Cornish The Ocean Conservancy
show all

modifications to the harbor porpoise take reduction plan - Northeast ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?