Amendment 15 to the 2006 Consolidated Atlantic HMS FMP

13 organizations filed 13 public comments on Amendment 15 to the 2006 Consolidated Atlantic HMS FMP, at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The comment window closed 1030d ago.

Abstract

NMFS is developing a proposed rule and draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) for Amendment 15 to the 2006 Consolidated Atlantic Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Fishery Management Plan (FMP) pursuant to the rulemaking authority under the Magnuson-Stevens Conservation and Management Act (MSA) Section 304(g). The Amendment considers changes on two different but related topics. First, the Amendment considers ways to collect data inside areas that are currently closed to commercial pelagic longline or bottom longline fishing. These closed areas have been in place since the early 2000s, and the prohibition on fishing during all or part of the year has led to a commensurate decrease in fishery-dependent data. These data are needed to fully assess the effectiveness of the existing closed areas in meeting conservation and management goals, including preventing overfishing, reducing bycatch, protecting species listed under the Endangered Species Act and protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, and maximizing U.S. fishermen’s access to fishery resources. In the Amendment, NMFS considers ways to modify the spatial and temporal aspects of four closed areas (Mid-Atlantic shark bottom longline, Charleston Bump pelagic longline, East Florida Coast pelagic longline, and DeSoto Canyon pelagic longline closed areas) to allow data collection in certain areas and times where and when risk of bycatch interactions are minimized. Second, Amendment 15 would also include cost allocation alternatives for the HMS Electronic Monitoring (EM) Program for the pelagic longline fishery. NMFS historically has paid all the costs of this EM program. In light of NMFS Policy 04-115-02 (Cost Allocation in EM Programs for Federally Managed U.S. Fisheries), Amendment 15 would consider alternatives to transition “sampling costs” (as defined in Policy 04-115-02) to industry, while the agency remains responsible for administrative costs.

Commenters (13)

• American Swordfish and Tuna Harvesters Associationtrade assoc.

  1 filing · confidence 85%
• Blue Water Fishermen's Associationtrade assoc.

  1 filing · confidence 85%
• C Bjornberg Inc. F/V Charleston Starunverified attribution

  1 filing · confidence 70%
• Crosby's Fish and Shrimp Companyunverified attribution

  1 filing · confidence 70%
• Environmental Defense Fundtrade assoc.

  1 filing · confidence 97%
• Helmar Fishing Inc.unverified attribution

  1 filing · confidence 70%
• Kim Nhi Incunverified attribution

  1 filing · confidence 70%
• Ngoc Hung Incunverified attribution

  1 filing · confidence 70%
• Saltwater Inc.unverified attribution

  1 filing · confidence 70%
• South Atlantic Fishery Management Counciltrade assoc.

  1 filing · confidence 85%
• The Billfish Foundationtrade assoc.

  1 filing · confidence 85%
• The Ocean Foundationtrade assoc.

  1 filing · confidence 85%
• Viking Yacht Companyunverified attribution

  1 filing · confidence 70%