Fisheries Management Plan for the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands Management Plan
• Bernard et al. noted that NMFS did not summarize or address comments received on the draft Biological Opinion (Biop) (p. 72) • NMFS will summarize or address comments received on the interim final rule when it publishes a final ruleComments: Draft Bernard et al. (2011) • Bernard et al. note that “...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Other Authors: | |
| Format: | Text |
| Language: | English |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.422.5068 http://209.112.168.2/protectedresources/stellers/esa/biop/final/cie/wa_ak_scientificrev2010biop_demastercomments11.pdf |
| Summary: | • Bernard et al. noted that NMFS did not summarize or address comments received on the draft Biological Opinion (Biop) (p. 72) • NMFS will summarize or address comments received on the interim final rule when it publishes a final ruleComments: Draft Bernard et al. (2011) • Bernard et al. note that “decisions should be based on the best possible understanding of the available scientific evidence” • NMFS agrees with this finding in general, and notes that the legal standard is that decision should be based on the "best available scientific and commercial data available. " Comments: Draft Bernard et al. (2011) • It is not clear what Bernard et al. meant by “jeopardy of adverse modification ” [sic] at least |
|---|