Summer Flounder Fishery; Public Hearings; Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS)

[[Page 18795]]

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 625

[I.D. 032295A]

Summer Flounder Fishery; Public Hearings; Supplemental

Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS)

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an SEIS; scoping meetings; request

for comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: NMFS announces that the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management

Council (Council) intends to prepare an SEIS for proposed Amendment 7

to the Summer Flounder Fishery Management Plan (FMP). NMFS informs the

public herewith of the opportunity to participate in the further

development of Amendment 7 to the FMP. All persons affected by, or

otherwise interested in, the proposed amendment are invited to

participate in determining the scope of significant issues to be

considered in the SEIS by submitting written comments. The scoping

process also will identify issues that are not significant and will

eliminate them from detailed study.

DATES: Written comments must be received by April 14, 1995.

The hearings are scheduled as follows:

1. April 10, 1995, 7 p.m., Manteo, NC;

2. April 10, 1995, 7 p.m., Galilee, RI;

3. April 10, 1995, 7:30 p.m., Ronkonkoma, NY; and

4. April 12, 1995, 7 p.m., Cape May Courthouse, NJ.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments on the scoping process and scope of

the SEIS to David R. Keifer, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery

Management Council, Room 2115 Federal Building, 300 South New Street,

Dover, DE 19904-6790; telephone: 302-674-2331; FAX: 302-674-5399.

The hearings will be held at the following locations:

1. Manteo--North Carolina State Aquarium, Airport Road, Roanoke

Island, Manteo, NC 27954;

2. Galilee--Dutch Inn, 307 Great Island Rd., Galilee, RI 02882;

3. Ronkonkoma--Holiday Inn, 3845 Veterans Memorial Highway,

Ronkonkoma, NY 11779; and

4. Cape May Courthouse--Cape May County Extension Office,

Dennisville Rd., Route 657, Cape May Courthouse, NJ 08210.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David R. Keifer, Executive Director,

302-674-2331; FAX: 302-674-5399.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Problems to be Discussed for This Amendment

1. A Moratorium on Entry of Additional Vessels Into the Commercial

Fishery

A moratorium on entry of additional vessels Into the summer

flounder commercial fishery was implemented with Amendment 2. The

moratorium automatically expires in 1997. Given the large number of

unemployed and underemployed fishing vessels in the Northwest Atlantic

and the overfished nature of the summer flounder resource, serious

consideration should be given to continuing the moratorium.

Extension of the moratorium will provide an opportunity for

participants in the fishery to benefit as the resource continues to

rebuild as a result of the fishing mortality reduction program. If the

moratorium is allowed to lapse, the fishery will revert to open access

and new vessels will enter the fishery. This would tend to dissipate

any chances of profitability. More likely, the problems experienced by

the existing participants in the fishery would be increased in

magnitude; more fishermen would be attempting to catch the same

quantity of fish, thereby increasing costs and decreasing income.

2. Moratorium Permits

Vessels with documented landings of summer flounder for sale

between January 26, 1985, and January 26, 1990, qualify for a

moratorium permit to land and sell summer flounder under this

moratorium program. The FMP provides that, if a commercial vessel fails

to land any summer flounder within any 52-week period, its moratorium

permit expires. The theory behind this provision is that the FMP had

very liberal qualification rules for a moratorium permit, so a

retirement provision was needed to reduce harvesting capacity over

time. Another view of this issue is that the retirement rule could

force fishermen to participate in the summer flounder fishery only to

keep their eligibility, thereby increasing effort to the fishery each

year.

3. Vessel Replacement Criteria

The New England Council has requested that the Mid-Atlantic Council

adopt the replacement language of the Multispecies FMP in the Summer

Flounder FMP.

The Summer Flounder FMP prohibits vessel replacement unless the

vessel sinks, burns, or is declared unseaworthy by the Coast Guard. The

rule was implemented to prevent increases in fishing power. The New

England Council's Northeast Multispecies FMP also contains a vessel

moratorium. The Multispecies FMP allows vessel replacement, as long as

the horsepower does not increase by more than 20 percent and the

length, gross registered tonnage, and net tonnage do not increase by

more than 10 percent.

The Multispecies FMP also provides that the moratorium permits

issued for a given vessel may not be divided between two vessels.

Therefore, under the Multispecies FMP rules, if the owner of a vessel

with multispecies and summer flounder permits wants to build a

replacement vessel, the owner would not be able to transfer the summer

flounder permit to the replacement vessel.

Many vessels are permitted under both FMPs. Of the 4,516 vessels

that have commercial multispecies permits, and of the 1,206 vessels

that have commercial summer flounder permits, 1,032 vessels have

permits under both FMPs.

4. Recreational Catch Limitation Adjustment System

The Summer Flounder FMP provides that, if a state exceeds its

commercial quota, the excess is deducted from the next year's quota.

There is no parallel system if the coastwide harvest limit for the

recreational fishery is exceeded. If the recreational fishery were to

exceed its target, it is possible that the overall quota (commercial

quota and recreational harvest limit) would need to be reduced for the

next year. In other words, the commercial fishery quota may be reduced

because the recreational target was exceeded. Some people in the

industry believe that this situation presents an equity problem that

should be addressed.

If the coastwide recreational management system continues, one

management alternative would be to deduct any recreational overage from

the harvest target for the following year.

5. Commercial Quota System

When Amendment 2 was being developed, many quota management systems

were considered, including a coastwide quota, regional, and state-by-

state quotas. A simple coastwide system was not feasible, due to the

migratory patterns of summer flounder. Fishermen at the southern end of

the range could possibly catch all the quota before fishermen at the

northern end of the range had access to the summer flounder.

[[Page 18796]]

To mitigate this inequity, the Council adopted a state-by-state

quota system. The states are responsible for managing their quotas, and

NMFS retains an oversight role to assure that the state quotas are not

exceeded. Since then, the FMP has been amended to allow the states to

combine or trade quotas.

Some industry representatives would like the Council to consider

alternative quota allocation systems. Many of the states have divided

their annual quotas into quotas for shorter time periods, e.g.,

quarterly, and have instituted trip limit systems to reduce the chances

of closure. The trip limits may be adequate for resident fishermen, but

may be too small to support transient vessels that traditionally have

landed in a number of states from Massachusetts to North Carolina.

Another problem with state-by-state quotas is differing trip limits

in adjacent states. Vessels will land in the state with the highest

trip limit. This problem occurred in Connecticut, where trip limits

were considered unnecessary and thus were not imposed. However, in

response to a reduction in the Massachusetts trip limit, many vessels

landed in Connecticut and filled Connecticut's quota in a few days--

before preventative action could be implemented.

In general, any alternative to a state-by-state quota system would

have to allow for an equitable allocation of the commercial quota

between northern and southern participants, as well as between the

smaller day boats and larger offshore vessels. Due to the seasonal

nature of the summer flounder fishery, the quota also would have to be

divided into smaller temporal units to allow for a fair distribution.

One possible approach is a bimonthly quota allocation system. To

minimize effects on traditional landings patterns, the allocation to

each period would be based on past landings instead of a system that

divided the quota equally over the six periods. For example, based on

1992 data, 23 percent would be allocated to period 1 (January-February)

and only 6 percent to period 3 (May-June)(Table 1.).

Table 1.--The Percent of the Total Summer Flounder Landed Commercially

in 1992 for Each 2-Month Period

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Period Percent

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jan-Feb...................................................... 22.68

Mar-Apr...................................................... 13.78

May-Jun...................................................... 5.97

Jul-Aug...................................................... 8.29

Sep-Oct...................................................... 28.13

Nov-Dec...................................................... 21.14

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Source: NMFS Weighout Data.

A coastwide bimonthly quota allocation system would allow fishermen

to land in any port along the coast. All commercial landings during a

bimonthly period would count toward the quota for that period. When the

quota had been landed for a bimonthly period, fishing for and/or

landing summer flounder would be prohibited for the remainder of the

period. Landings in excess of the allocation for the period would be

subtracted from the following year's quota for the same period.

However, bimonthly allocations without trip limits would encourage

derby-style fishing practices that would allow the quota to be landed

by larger, more mobile vessels at the beginning of each period.

Supplies of summer flounder would be discontinuous and smaller boats

would be disadvantaged. Therefore, trip limits would be necessary to

ensure a safer and more equitable fishery.

The trip limits could be established and modified throughout the 2-

month period to allow for a continuous supply of product and equitable

distribution of flounder to fishermen using both small and large

vessels. For example, a 3,000-lb (1,360.78 kg) trip limit could be

established for the beginning of period 1. The limit would decrease to

1,000 lb (453.59 kg) when 50 percent of the allocation was reached, to

500 lb (226.8 kg) when 75 percent of the quota was taken, and to 100 lb

(45.36 kg) when 90 percent of the landings were reached. Different trip

limit systems could be designed for each period to ensure equitable

distribution over each 2-month period.

Unlike the current management program that allows states to design

their own systems, NMFS would be responsible for implementing trip

limits for each period. Therefore, NMFS will need significant resources

to design and implement such a system.

6. Management of the Recreational Fishery

During the development of Amendment 2, much debate arose over

whether the recreational fishery should be managed on a state-by-state

basis (the same as the commercial fishery), on a regional basis, or

coastwide. The final decision was to manage on a coastwide basis.

The recreational fishery is now managed with a combination of

minimum fish size limits, possession limits, and seasons that apply

coastwide. However, recreational landings are not equally distributed

along the coast. For example, summer flounder landings are considerably

higher in New York and New Jersey than they are in North Carolina.

Coastwide management results in the fishing mortality reduction

measures effectively being averaged across all of the states. To ensure

greater equity between northern and southern states, the Council has

been asked to consider regional or state-by-state management of the

recreational fishery.

Regional management could require that different measures be

implemented in the three regions along the coast. As an example, the

fishing mortality reduction strategy in Amendment 2 called for a

reduction of 47 percent in the first 3 years of implementation. The

resulting coastwide management measures included a 14-inch (35.6-cm)

minimum fish size, a 3-fish possession limit and no closed season on a

coastwide basis. Had the fishing mortality reduction strategy been

implemented in subregions with the same size limit and season, the

possession limit would have been two from Maine to Connecticut, two in

the states from New York to Delaware, and six from Maryland to North

Carolina.

A state-by-state system would allocate recreational quota to each

state. Each state would then be required to develop management measures

to ensure that the harvest limit would not be exceeded for that state.

7. Summer Flounder Bycatch in the Sea Scallop Fishery

Although scallop dredges account for approximately 1 percent of the

summer flounder landings, they are the second most important gear in

the commercial summer flounder fishery (after otter trawls). The

scallop fishery is currently managed under the Atlantic Sea Scallop

FMP, which placed a moratorium on the entry of additional vessels into

the sea scallop fishery and imposed an effort limitation system.

Under the Summer Flounder FMP, sea scallop fishermen, if they

qualify for a permit, may land all the summer flounder they catch, as

long as they meet the minimum fish size limit and comply with the

applicable state trip limits or closures. However, the summer flounder

FMP and implementing regulations provide that when a state's commercial

quota has been taken, no

[[Page 18797]]

commercial vessels may land summer flounder. The issue arises then, of

whether sea scallop fishermen should be allowed to land their bycatch

without regard to state summer flounder trip limits or closures, so

long as the flounder meet the minimum fish size limit.

8. Bycatch Allowance

The summer flounder FMP provides that only vessels with moratorium

permits may land summer flounder for sale. All other vessels must

comply with the recreational seasons, size limits, and possession

limits. The issue for scoping is whether commercial vessels that did

not qualify for moratorium permits should be allowed to land for sale a

specified amount of summer flounder caught as bycatch in fisheries

directed at other species.

9. De Minimis Status for States

The Summer Flounder FMP is a joint plan prepared under both the

Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, as amended,

and the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act (ACFCMA).

Under ACFCMA, if a state does not implement measures required by an

FMP, the Federal Government may impose a moratorium on landing the

species covered by the FMP in that state.

In the case of summer flounder, several states, e.g., Maine, New

Hampshire, and Delaware, had historically very small, or de minimis,

commercial fisheries and, therefore, received very small quota

allocations. A question for resolution under Amendment 7 is whether

these states should be required to impose a full array of management

measures for what could be a bycatch fishery.

This issue is essentially an Atlantic States Marine Fisheries

Commission (ASMFC) concern, because the Director, Northeast Region,

NMFS, must ensure no landing of summer flounder by federally permitted

vessels once a state's quota has been landed. The Federal minimum fish

size limit would apply to summer flounder in commerce. Federally

permitted vessels would be required to use the appropriate minimum cod

end on otter trawl nets, which is the management measure established by

the FMP.

Several states also have de minimis landings in the recreational

sector. It must be determined whether adequate conservation reasons

exist to incur the governmental costs associated with preparing and

implementing regulations. The state-by-state distribution of the 1989

summer flounder recreational catch is shown in Table 2 below.

Table 2.--Estimated Total Recreational Catch of All Species and Summer

Flounder (SF), Maine to North Carolina, 1989

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Total catch SF catch State SF State SF

----------------------------- catch as catch as

percent percent

of coast of state

State SF catch total

(lb) (lb) ----------- catch

----------

% %

------------------------------------------------------------------------

ME................... 2,206,420 ........... ......... .........

NH................... 1,765,093 6,360 0.2 0.4

MA................... 14,137,658 26,122 0.9 0.2

RI................... 4,984,989 120,842 4.3 2.4

CT................... 5,908,942 33,875 1.2 0.6

NY................... 20,114,161 449,865 16.0 2.2

NJ................... 17,176,916 651,288 23.2 3.8

DE................... 4,371,203 143,750 5.1 3.3

MD................... 12,791,667 471,839 16.8 3.7

VA................... 20,127,089 527,566 18.8 2.6

NC................... 16,852,753 372,652 13.3 2.2

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Source: Unpublished NMFS Data.

(Table originally appeared as Table 42 in Amendment 2 to the Summer

Flounder Fishery Management Plan)

10. Summer Flounder Landings by Vessels Without Federal Summer Flounder

Permits

A better reporting system must be developed for summer flounder

caught in state waters. Currently, vessels that land summer flounder

caught in state waters are not required to have Federal permits, and

therefore, are not required to file Federal logbook reports. In

addition, some dealers handle only summer flounder caught in state

waters and are thus also not subject to the Federal permitting and

reporting requirements.

The commercial quota, however, applies to all summer flounder

caught for sale, regardless of where caught. The states must,

therefore, implement a reporting system to account for the summer

flounder caught in state waters.

11. In-Season Quota Adjustments

The summer flounder FMP allows quotas to be set once a year and to

take effect January 1. It may be desirable to change quotas during the

year as new information becomes available. This may create uncertainty

in the industry, however, and further complicate the quota setting

process.

12. Quota Setting Process

The annual quota setting process would be more clearly defined

under the alternative proposed in Amendment 7. The summer flounder FMP

contains fishing mortality rate targets, factors to be considered in

setting the quotas, and a process for the Council to follow in setting

the quotas. The FMP does not discuss the limits that may be placed on

the Council's discretion in setting the quotas, specifically the

probability of achieving the target fishing mortality rates. This

alternative would establish guidelines to be used by the Council when

it sets annual quotas.

13. Fishing Mortality Rate Reduction Strategy

The current fishing mortality rate reduction strategy, incorporated

in Amendment 2, called for a reduction in fishing mortality (F) to 0.53

during the first year that Amendment 2 was in

[[Page 18798]]

effect (1993). That rate was to remain constant for a total of three

years (1993-95). In 1996, the fishing mortality rate will be reduced to

Fmax (F = 0.23) and remain constant at that level.

Although the fishing mortality reduction program has had some

success, the poor 1993 year class will significantly reduce the

allowable catch in 1996 in order to meet the fishing mortality rate

target. This reduction may have significant negative impact on the

fisheries. Therefore, it might be appropriate to readjust the fishing

mortality rate reduction strategy in order to reduce the severity of

the 1996 reduction.

For example, an alternative strategy could set the fishing

mortality rate for 1996 at 0.38, which is halfway between the 1995

target F (0.53) and 0.23. Based on the information provided by the

latest stock assessment, this intermediate reduction could allow for a

1996 quota that was approximately 50 percent larger than the one

associated with the current strategy (i.e., an F of 0.23). However,

this increase in quota would have a slight affect on the spawning

stock; stock numbers would only be reduced by 10 percent in 1997

relative to the stock size associated with the current reduction

strategy.

Current Management Objectives. (Part of scoping is the possible

reevaluation of the existing objectives). The objectives of the FMP are

to:

1. Reduce fishing mortality in the summer flounder fishery to

assure that overfishing does not occur.

2. Reduce fishing mortality on immature summer flounder to increase

spawning stock biomass.

3. Improve the yield from the fishery.

4. Promote compatible management regulations between state and

Federal jurisdictions.

5. Promote uniform and effective enforcement of regulations.

6. Minimize regulations to achieve the management objectives stated

above.

Commercial Fishery Management Measures. Possible management

measures for the commercial fishery include: Minimum and/or maximum

fish size, minimum mesh size, closed seasons, quotas (including

adjustment among states), moratorium on vessels, ITQs, trip limits,

permit limits, and gear restrictions and limits.

Recreational Fishery Management Measures. Possible management

measures for the summer flounder recreational fishery include: Minimum

and/or maximum fish size, maximum possession limit, closed seasons,

closed areas, gear restrictions and limits, quotas (including

adjustments among states), and restrictions on the ability to sell

recreationally caught fish.

Possible management measures for the summer flounder fishery that

carries recreational fishermen for hire include: Minimum and/or maximum

fish size, maximum possession limit, closed seasons, closed areas, gear

restrictions and limits, quotas (including adjustment among states),

and restrictions on the ability to sell recreationally caught fish.

Any measures that are implemented under Amendment 7 would most

likely be included in the summer flounder framework. The framework

allows the Monitoring Committee, made up of representatives of the

three Councils, ASMFC, and NMFS, to review annually the condition of

the resource and fishery and recommend adjustments to the measures

(e.g., possession limit, quota, etc.) to achieve the desired goals.

Permitting and Reporting. It is not anticipated that the permitting

and reporting provisions of the current FMP will be changed as a result

of this Amendment.

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

Dated: April 7, 1995.

Richard H. Schaefer,

Director of Office of Fisheries Conservation and Management, National

Marine Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. 95-9082 Filed 4-10-95; 9:16 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-22-W