Amendment 16 to the NE Multispecies FMP

Amendment 16 to the NE Multispecies FMP.pdf

Northeast Multispecies Reporting Requirements

Amendment 16 to the NE Multispecies FMP

OMB: 0648-0605

Document [pdf]

Download: pdf | pdf

FINAL
Amendment 16

To the

Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan

Including a

Environmental Impact Statement
And
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

Prepared by the
New England Fishery Management Council
In cooperation with the
National Marine Fisheries Service

Date Draft Submitted: April 15, 2009
Date Final Submitted: October 16, 2009
Date Approved:

Intentionally Blank

COVER SHEET

RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES:
Assistant Administrator for Fisheries
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
U.S. Department of Commerce
Washington, D.C. 20235
New England Fishery Management Council
50 Water Street
Newburyport, MA 01950
PROPOSED ACTIONS:
Adoption, approval, and implementation of Amendment 16 to the Northeast Multispecies Fishery
Management Plan.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Paul Howard, Executive Director
New England Fishery Management Council
50 Water Street
Newburyport, MA 01950
(978) 465 – 0492

TYPE OF STATEMENT:
( ) DRAFT

(X) FINAL

ABSTRACT:
The New England Fishery Management Council and the NOAA Assistant Administrator for Fisheries
propose to adopt, approve, and implement Amendment 16 to the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan
(FMP) pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (the Act). The EIS presents the
details of a management program designed to ensure compliance with the Act. It proposes measures to continue formal
rebuilding programs for overfished stocks and to end overfishing on those stocks where it is occurring. Appropriate
management measures will be adopted to implement these rebuilding programs. The Amendment includes measures
that address a wide range of other management issues.
DATE BY WHICH COMMENTS MUST BE RECEIVED:

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

_____________________

Intentionally Blank

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

Executive Summary

1.0 Executive Summary
In New England, the New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC) is charged with developing
management plans that meet the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (M-S Act). The Northeast
Multispecies Fishery Management Plan (FMP) specifies the management measures for twelve groundfish
species (cod, haddock, yellowtail flounder, pollock, plaice, witch flounder, white hake, windowpane
flounder, Atlantic halibut, winter flounder, redfish, ocean pout, and Atlantic wolffish) off the New England
and Mid-Atlantic coasts. The FMP has been updated through a series of amendments and framework
adjustments. The most recent multispecies amendment, published as Amendment 13, was approved by the
National Marine Fisheries Service in March, 2004 and became effective on May 1, 2004. This amendment
adopted a broad suite of management measures in order to achieve fishing mortality targets and meet other
requirements of the M-S Act. Included in Amendment 13 was a plan to evaluate rebuilding progress and
implement measures in fishing year 2009 as necessary to continue rebuilding. This action is the result of
that decision.
For several groundfish stocks, the mortality targets adopted by Amendment 13 represented substantial
reductions from existing levels. For other stocks, the mortality targets were at or higher than existing levels
and mortality could remain the same or even increase. Because most fishing trips in this fishery catch a
wide range of species, it is impossible to design measures that will selectively change mortality for
individual species. The management measures adopted by Amendment 13 to reduce mortality where
necessary were also expected to reduce fishing mortality unnecessarily on other, healthy stocks. As a result
of these lower fishing mortality rates, yield from healthy stocks is sacrificed and the management plan may
not provide optimum yield - the amount of fish that will provide the greatest overall benefit to the nation.
Amendment 13 created opportunities to target these healthy stocks. The FMP restricts the number of days
that vessels can fish by allocating each limited access permit a specific amount of days-at-sea (DAS).
Amendment 13 further defined three categories of DAS. The DAS categories are:
• Category A: These DAS can be used to target any regulated groundfish stock, subject to the
restrictions on gear, areas, and landing limits that are defined by the FMP.
• Category B: These DAS are used to target healthy groundfish stocks – that is, stocks that are not
overfished and that are not subject to overfishing. Programs to use Category B DAS prescribe
specific conditions for their use.
• Category C: These DAS cannot be used, but remain associated with a permit. As stocks rebuild, in
the future some of these DAS may be re-allocated into other categories and may be used.
Since the adoption of Amendment 13, four framework adjustment actions (Frameworks 40A, 40B, 41, and
42) were adopted specifically to address groundfish fishing issues. The earlier frameworks created
opportunities to use Category B DAS in Special Access Programs or through the Category B (regular) DAS
Pilot Project in order to target healthy stocks. Framework 42, on the other hand, was a more extensive
action that imposed major changes to the fishery. Some of the changes included:
• Adoption of a Georges Bank yellowtail flounder rebuilding strategy
• Implementation of differential DAS counting in Southern New England and the Gulf of Maine
• Changes in trip limits
• A change in ratio of A DAS and B DAS allocations and extension of the B DAS program paired
with a reduction in the total number of days that could be used
• Changes to Special Management Programs
• Establishment of the GB Cod Fixed Gear Sector
• Extension of the DAS leasing program and modifications to the DAS transfer program
• Mandatory installation of a Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) for all limited access DAS
groundfish vessels
• Changes in gear standards.
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

Executive Summary

Because of delays in developing this amendment, the proposed management measures were not
implemented on May 1, 2009. As a result, the Secretary of Commerce announced interim measures that
took effect on May 1, 2009, and will remain in effect until May 1, 2010 when Amendment 16 is
implemented.
Proposed Action
This action implements a broad range of measures designed to achieve mortality targets, provide
opportunities to target healthy stocks, mitigate (to the extent possible) the economic impacts of the
measures, and improve administration of the fishery. Details of the measures summarized below can be
found in section 4.0. The measures being considered associated with major changes to management of the
fishery include:
•

New status determination criteria developed by the New England Fishery Science Center (NEFSC)
during its 2008 assessment are adopted, as are control rules for setting Acceptable Biological Catch
(ABC). Revisions to mortality targets to achieve rebuilding based on the recent stock assessments
are also implemented. Formal rebuilding programs are proposed for witch flounder, GB winter
flounder, pollock, northern windowpane flounder, and Atlantic wolffish.
The revised status determination criteria adopt the best available science as the basis for the
management programs. These criteria identify the target biomass levels (usually SSBMSY or its
proxy) as well as the limit fishing mortality rates (usually FMSY or its proxy) for all multispecies
stocks. When combined with estimates of current stock size, this information is used to establish
fishing mortality rates that will comply with statutory requirements to prevent overfishing and/or
rebuild overfished stocks. For overfished stocks, the mortality targets are designed to accomplish
the rebuilding strategy adopted by the Council in Amendment 13, FW 42, or this action. Mortality
targets are also constrained by the adopted ABC control rules, so in the absence of more precise
estimates of uncertainty, fishing mortality rates are constrained to no more than 75 percent of
FMSY (or its proxy). Table 1 summarizes stock status and rebuilding periods that are targeted by
this Amendment. The management measures are designed to meet these objectives.
Once the desired fishing mortality rates are known, an estimate is made of the changes in fishing
mortality needed to achieve the desired rates. In some cases a rebuilding mortality cannot be
determined because the stock projections are considered unreliable. The target fishing mortality
rates used in the preparation of this amendment are shown in Table 2. Stock projections for
SNE/MA winter flounder indicate that the stock cannot be expected to rebuild by 2014 even in the
absence of all fishing mortality. This amendment targets a fishing mortality rate as close to 0 as
possible for this stock.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

Executive Summary
Table 1 - Stock status summary and targeted rebuilding dates (based on GARM III, DPWG). Bold-faced target
dates are adopted in this action.
(1) Overfishing status based on GARM III. Recent assessments (TRAC 2009) indicate overfishing is no longer
occurring on this stock.
Rebuilding
Species
Stock
Overfishing?
Overfished?
Date
Cod
GB
Yes
Yes
2026
Cod
GOM
Yes
No
2014
Haddock
GB
No
No
Rebuilt
Haddock
GOM
No
No
Rebuilt
Yes
2014
Yellowtail Flounder
GB
Yes(1)
Yellowtail Flounder
SNE/MA
Yes
Yes
2014
Yellowtail Flounder
CC/GOM
Yes
Yes
2023
American Plaice
GB/GOM
No
No
2014
Witch Flounder
Yes
Yes
2017
Winter Flounder
GB
Yes
Yes
2017
Winter Flounder
GOM
Unknown
Unknown
Winter Flounder
SNE/MA
Yes
Yes
2014
Redfish
No
No
2051
White Hake
GB/GOM
Yes
Yes
2014
Pollock
GB/GOM
Yes
Yes
2017
Windowpane Flounder
GB/GOM
Yes
Yes
2017
Windowpane Flounder
SNE/MA
Yes
No
2014
Ocean Pout
No
Yes
2014
Atlantic Halibut
No
Yes
2055
Atlantic Wolffish
Unknown
Yes

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

Executive Summary

Table 2 – Summary of rebuilding reductions needed to achieve desired fishing mortality.
Targeted
% Change in
2008 F
Fishing
2007
F necessary
Mortality
from 2008
Species
Stock
to achieve
Fishing
(either Frebuild Estimated
Mortality
targeted
or 75% of
Catch
mortality
FMSY )
Cod
GB
0.300
0.184
0.410
-55%

% Change in
Exploitation

-50%

Cod

GOM

0.456

0.18

0.300

-40%

-37%

Haddock

0.230

0.26

0.079

229%

202%

Haddock

GOM

0.350

0.32

0.250

28%

24%

Yellowtail Flounder

0.289

0.109

0.130

-16%

-15%

Yellowtail Flounder

SNE/MA

0.413

0.072

0.120

-40%

-39%

Yellowtail Flounder

CC/GOM

0.414

0.18

0.289

-38%

-34%

American Plaice

GB/GOM

0.090

0.14

0.099

41%

39%

0.290

0.15

0.296

-49%

-46%

Witch Flounder
Winter Flounder

0.280

0.20

0.131

GOM

0.417

N/A

Unk

49%
n/a

48%

Winter Flounder
Winter Flounder

SNE/MA

0.649

0.000

0.265

-100%

0.005

0.03

0.008

Redfish

Unk

275%

271%

White Hake

GB/GOM

0.150

0.084

0.065

29%

28%

Pollock

GB/GOM

10.464

4.245

15.516

-73%

Windowpane

GOM/GB

1.960

n/a

-73%
n/a

Windowpane

SNE/MA

1.850

n/a

Ocean Pout

0.380

n/a

Atlantic Halibut

0.065

0.044

0.060

-27%

Atlantic Wolffish

Unk

n/a

•

-26%

Annual Catch Limits (ACLs) and Accountability Measures (AMs): Revisions to the M-S Act in
2006 require the Council to determine ACLs and AMs for each stock in the management complex.
This action implements a process for calculating an ACL in addition to the Overfishing Level
(OFL) and Acceptable Biological Catch (ABC) for each stock. Recommendations for these figures
will come from the Plan Development Team (PDT), the ABC is set by the Science and Statistical
Committee, and the Council will approve final ACL numbers. ACLs may be broken into subcomponents for different segments of the fishery. Two AM options are adopted for the commercial
vessels that do not join sectors. For Fishing Years (FY) 2010 and 2011, DAS reductions and/or
more strict differential DAS counting would be put into place in the year following an ACL
overage. For FY 2012 and beyond, a “hard TAC” backstop is adopted, under which the fishery will
be suspended upon reaching the year’s ACL for a stock. For the recreational fishery, AMs under
consideration include adjustments to season, adjustments to minimum size, or adjustments to bag
limits. Separate AMs will be determined for the private boat and party/charter components of the
recreational fishery, and AMs will be implemented at the end of the year following a year with an

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

Executive Summary

overage. A three-year average of recreational catch will be compared to a three-year average of the
ACL to determine whether an overage has occurred.
•

Implementation of Sectors: Additional sectors for the commercial fishery are implemented by this
amendment. Seventeen new sectors are proposed throughout the New England region. Sectors are
self-selecting and largely self-regulating. Administrative measures revised to support sector
implementation include methods for drafting and submitting formation proposals, operations plans,
and sector monitoring plans; revise enforcement provisions, and clarification of the interaction of
sectors with Special Management Programs. Sectors are required to submit supporting NEPA
documents with their application and Operations Plan. Any changes in fishery regulations or fishing
practices that may result on the basis of sector-based management will be addressed in the
regulations that implement a particular sector, and in the EIS or EA corresponding to the creation or
continuation of that sector. Such NEPA documents prepared by the sectors (an EA or EIS) will be
tiered from the Amendment 16 EIS.
The sectors will receive exemptions from many of the common pool effort control measures in
exchange for a sector TAC for each species in the management plan. These TACs are called
Annual Catch Entitlements, or ACE. The sectors conduct fishing activity according to their own
business plans. In order to assure that sector ACEs are not exceeded, a new system of at-sea and
dockside catch monitoring is proposed. It is proposed that a sector be able to carry up to 10 percent
of unused ACE forward into the next fishing year, and sector can exchange ACE with other sectors.
For each permit that is eligible to join a sector, the permit’s Potential Sector Contribution (PSC) is
calculated. The ACE that is allocated to a sector is based on the sum of the PSCs for the permits
that join the sector. This action adopts two methods to calculated PSC. For most permits, the PSC
for each stock is based on the landing history of the permit for the years 1996-2006. For permits
committed to ne of the two existing sectors as of March 1, 2008, the PSC for GB cod is base don
landings history for the period 1996-2001. Allocation of resources, including special allocations for
the Eastern U.S./Canada area, provisions for sector overages, methods for permit history
calculation, and joint and several liability of sectors are also considered.

Commercial Fishery Mortality Measures:
o Option 3A is adopted to control fishing mortality from commercial vessels that do not join
sectors. This is a suite of measures that would eliminate differential DAS counting areas,
reduce Category A DAS by 50 percent from the FW 42 allocations, and count all DAS in
24-hour increments. It also adopts restricted gear areas where fishing is only allowed using
specific gear that should minimize the catch of rebuilding stocks. The category A/Category
B DAS split that would result is 27.5%/72.5%. Most other current measures would remain,
including seasonal and rolling closures and gear requirements. Trip limits are modified.
Landing windowpane flounder, ocean pout, and SNE/MA winter flounder is prohibited.
o A pilot program is proposed to facilitate targeting GOM haddock with six-inch gillnets.
This program has a limited season and other requirements designed to facilitate monitoring.
o The minimum size for haddock is reduced to 18 inches.

Recreational Fishery Measures:
o

A specific allocation of GOM cod and GOM haddock between the commercial and
recreational fisheries is adopted, as is guidance for considering allocations for other stocks
in the future. An allocation will not be made if the recreational harvest, after accounting for
state waters catches outside the management plan, is less than five percent of the removals.
In those cases that meet the requirements to establish an allocation, a defined time period
will be used to calculate the allocation.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

Executive Summary

o
o
o
o

This action also removes the requirement that recreational fishermen be limited to two
hooks per line.
It allows recreational fishermen to land fillets with most of the skin off except for two
square inches of skin on the fillet.
In order to reduce recreational mortality on GOM cod, it extends the closed season for two
weeks into April.
The minimum size for haddock is reduced to 18 inches.

Other measures being adopted by the amendment include the following:

Atlantic wolffish is added to the management unit. A description of the stock and status are
included, as well as status determination criteria and essential fish habitat (EFH. This action
prohibits retention of the wolffish by all commercial vessels and recreational vessels, due to its low
stock size. This prohibition is expected to contribute to rebuilding because research shows wolffish
have a high survival rate when discarded from trawl gear.

An increase in the minimum size of Atlantic halibut is adopted, bringing the size to 41 inches, in
order to match the median length at maturity for female haddock in the Gulf of Maine. This applies
to both commercial and recreational fishing activity.

The conservation tax on DAS transfers is eliminated, and permits in the confirmation of permit
history (CPH) category no longer need to be activated in order participate in the DAS leasing or
transfer programs. The cap on the number of DAS a permit can lease is removed.

The periodic adjustment process is modified so that all measures adopted can be adjusted on a
framework action.

This action will allow a vessel to simultaneously hold a limited access scallop and multispecies
permit, even of the vessel did not qualify for a multispecies combination permit. This would allow a
vessel to possess a both permits even if the scallop dredge vessel did not qualify for a limited access
multispecies vessel combination permit.

Additional reporting requirements are adopted to facilitate the monitoring of ACLs and sectors.
One requirement is area-specific reporting in which any vessel will need to declare in which of four
broad areas it will fish so that all groundfish catch may be allocated to the appropriate stock. In
order to link this information on area fished and catch to dealer data, each vessel operator will be
required to report a VTR serial number for the trip via VMS at a time specified by NMFS. Also, for
non-sector vessels in the commercial fishery, a discard rate, by gear, will be determined and applied
to the landings for each trip. NMFS may apply this discard estimate in one of two ways: either
based on the total landings of a stock, by gear, or on a trip-by-trip basis. The discard rate will be
based by either the most recent assessment for the stock, using a gear-specific estimate if available,
or on observer data for the previous year.

Special management programs are also modified. Category B DAS can no longer be used to target
pollock. The CAI Hook Gear Haddock SAP will have an extended season and expanded area. The
Eastern U.S./Canada Haddock SAP is reauthorized indefinitely, with the additional rule that trawl
gear fishing in the SAP can use codends with a minimum mesh size of six inch square or diamond
mesh. The CAII Yellowtail Flounder SAP is modified to allow targeting of GB haddock even when
the area is not open for targeting yellowtail flounder. Finally, the SNE/MA Winter Flounder SAP is
suspended until stock conditions warrant its re-implementation.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

Executive Summary

The Council adopted as a policy that catch history will not accrue to any vessel, permit, or
component of the fishery after implementation of Amendment 16.

Summary of Environmental Consequences
The environmental impacts of this action are discussed in detail in section 7.0. Estimating the impacts of the
Proposed Action is difficult because of the complexity of the measures. This action essentially results in the
commercial groundfish fishery being managed under two different regimes: sectors and effort controls. The
impacts will depend on how many vessels choose to operate in each. While there is a current estimate of the
maximum number of vessels that will be in sectors, the final actual number will not be known until the start
of Fishing Year 2010 (FY 2010) because vessels can choose to fish outside of sectors until that date.
Biological impacts are described in section 7.2, impacts on endangered and other protected species are
described in section 7.3, impacts on essential fish habitat are described in section 7.4, the economic impacts
are described in section 7.5, and social impacts are described in section 7.6. Cumulative effects are
described in section 7.8. Summaries of the impacts are provided in the following paragraphs.
Biological Impacts
The complex suite of measures that constitutes the Proposed Action is designed to achieve the rebuilding
objectives for the Northeast Multispecies fishery. The most important biological impact of the proposed
measures is that they will control fishing mortality on Northeast Multispecies stocks in order to prevent (or
end) overfishing and rebuild overfished stocks. The critical measures for these impacts are the adoption of
revised status determination criteria, the identification of new mortality targets based on those criteria
(including the adoption of new formal rebuilding programs where required), the design of controls on
fishing mortality for the commercial and recreational components of the fishery, and the adoption of an
Annual Catch Limit (ACL) and Accountability Measure (AM) system.
The fishing mortality targets identified in the amendment are expected to meet almost all rebuilding targets
consistent with the adopted rebuilding strategies. In some cases, because the rebuilding mortality is actually
higher than the mortality called for by the ABC control rule, rebuilding of the stock may be achieved earlier
than called for by the rebuilding program. In the case of SNE/MA winter flounder, the stock will not rebuild
by the by the end of the period even in the absence of all fishing mortality; the expected impacts of the
measures indicate that the stock should rebuild by 2017. Table 3 below summarizes the estimated
rebuilding dates should the mortality targets of this amendment be achieved. Actual rebuilding dates may
differ if mortality targets are not achieved and if observed recruitment, selectivity, weight-at-age, etc. does
not match the assumptions used in the projections.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

Executive Summary

Table 3 – Expected dates for achieving rebuilding targets should mortality targets be achieved
1. There are two assessment runs for GB yellowtail flounder that give different results.

2. Projections are unreliable.
Species
Cod
Cod
Haddock
Haddock
Yellowtail Flounder
Yellowtail Flounder
Yellowtail Flounder
American Plaice
Witch Flounder
Winter Flounder
Winter Flounder
Winter Flounder
Redfish
White Hake
Pollock
Windowpane
Windowpane
Ocean Pout
Atlantic Halibut
Atlantic Wolffish

Stock
GB
GOM
GB
GOM
GB
SNE/MA
CC/GOM
GB/GOM
GB
GOM
SNE/MA

GOM/GB
SNE/MA

Expected Rebuilding Date (Probability)
2026/50%
2010
NA (rebuilt)
NA (rebuilt)
2012(75%)/2015(77%)1
2014/50%
2014/61%
2011/73%
2015/75%
2016/76%
NA (status unknown)2
2017/85%
2012/50%
2014/50%
20172
Unk2
Unk2
Unk2
2055/50%
Unk2

The amendment proposes measures to attain the target fishing mortality rates. For commercial fishing
vessels there are two approaches to control fishing mortality. The most straightforward is that the
amendment expands the use of sectors that have their catch limited by a quota. As long as quotas are set
consistent with the target fishing mortality rates and sectors are adequately monitored so that catch does not
exceed the allocated quota, target mortality should be achieved. For vessels that do not choose to join a
sector, the Proposed Action uses the effort controls developed in Option 3A. The effect of these measures
on fishing mortality depends on how many vessels do not join sectors. Since this information is unknown,
the measures were analyzed as if all commercial groundfish vessels remained outside of sectors and were
subject to effort controls. It is possible some permit holders may base their decision on sector membership
on the choice of an effort control alternative. This means that there is more uncertainty over the impacts of
the effort control measures than when analyzed in previous management actions. Second, there are some
elements of the options that cannot be reliably quantified. For example, the use of restricted gear areas in
two of the options may result in additional changes in fishing mortality but the magnitude and direction are
uncertain.
The proposed measures are expected to change exploitation as shown in Table 4. The analytic tool used to
estimate these changes cannot provide estimates for halibut and wolffish. As can be seen from this table, the
effort controls that are adopted are expected to achieve the needed reductions for all stocks except SNE/MA
winter flounder, where they will not eliminate all fishing mortality. There is, however, considerable
uncertainty over these estimates because sector participation is unknown. It is important to note, however,
that with the Proposed Action the number of allocated DAS will be less than the DAS used in recent fishing
years.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

Executive Summary

Table 4 – Option 3A changes in exploitation (needed difference for pollock reflects impacts of changes to the
Category B regular DAS program)
Spec
AREA
Needed
Proposed Action - Option 3A
Difference
% Difference
COD
GBANK
-50%
-54%
COD
GM
-37%
-52%
HADDOCK
GBANK
202%
-53%
HADDOCK
GM
24%
-54%
WINTER
GBANK
48%
-52%
WINTER
GM
-45%
WINTER
SNEMA
-100%
-67%
PLAICE
ALL
39%
-56%
WITCH
ALL
-46%
-56%
WHK
ALL
28%
-63%
WINDOWPANE NORTH
-59%
WINDOWPANE SOUTH
-61%
YTF
CCGOM
-34%
-57%
YTF
GBANK
-15%
-59%
YTF
SNEMA
-39%
-39%
POLLOCK
ALL
-66%
-61%
REDFISH
ALL
271%
-62%

For recreational fishing vessels the proposed measures are only designed to reduce fishing mortality on
GOM cod. The needed reduction in mortality for GOM cod is 40 percent, but this is mitigated for the
recreational fishery by the decision to provide a separate allocation to the commercial and recreational
components of the groundfish fishery. Because the recreational component in recent years has been
catching less than its proposed allocation, the reduction needed is only 25 percent. Data limitations prevent
an exact estimate of the impacts of the proposed two-week extension of the season when GOM cod cannot
be landed by recreational vessels. If the season was extended for the entire month of April, the reduction
would be expected to be 40 percent, so the two-week extension is expected to achieve about half that.
The final key component for meeting mortality targets is the adoption of an ACL and AM system for this
fishery. By defining ACLs on a periodic basis, catch levels are adopted that are consistent with rebuilding
objectives. Unlike the target TAC system used in the past, these ACLs are linked to AMs that automatically
adjust management measures to ensure that catches remain below target levels. For the commercial fishery
in FY 2010 and 2011, vessels in sectors will be subject to quotas while vessels not in sectors will be subject
to DAS adjustments (primarily through differential DAS counting in appropriate stock areas). Beginning in
FY 2012 the entire commercial fishery will be subject to quotas. Recreational fishery AMs will also control
recreational catch through the use of bag limits, seasons, and minimum size limits.
There are numerous other measures included in the action; many of these are administrative in nature
(changes in reporting requirements, the periodic adjustment process, etc.) and are not expected to have any
biological impacts, others may have relatively minor effects. For example, changes to the CAI Hook Gear
Haddock SAP, extending the Eastern U.S./Canada Haddock SAP, modifying the CAI Yellowtail Flounder
SAP, and reducing the minimum size for haddock are all likely to increase fishing mortality on GB
haddock, but will not result in overfishing. Incorporating Atlantic wolffish into the management unit and
prohibiting its possession should reduce fishing mortality for this stock.
Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Impacts
No adverse impacts on EFH are expected to result from the Proposed Action. The primary impact on EFH
expected to be beneficial to EFH is the overall reduction in effort due to the reduction in Category A DAS
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

Executive Summary

and 24-hour clock for non sector vessels, and the expected effort reduction as a result of more efficient
operations for non-sector vessels. These reductions are expected to benefit habitat by reducing the
interaction of groundfish fishing vessels with EFH. Other changes are expected to have either neutral or
beneficial effects on EFH.
Impacts on Endangered and Other Protected Species
None of the measures proposed in Amendment 16 are likely to produce impacts to protected species beyond
those described in previous regulations. While not quantifiable, the impacts are expected to be beneficial as
a result of overall reductions in groundfish fishing effort. In the case of the Proposed Action, particular
effort reductions will occur in the GOM and in SNE, which are relative high use areas for several large
whale species, small cetaceans and pinnipeds, resulting in more distinct benefits to protected resources
compared to the status quo.
Economic Impacts
The Proposed Action will affect any commercial groundfish vessel with a limited access permit and a DAS
baseline greater than zero. In general, any measure that places limits on fishing effort will have negative
economic impacts in the near future, while other measures are designed to mitigate economic stress on the
fishery. Sectors in particular are considered to provide economic relief for adversely impacted fishermen
since they will gain the ability to make more personal business decisions. Determining the impacts on
vessel revenues of the proposed effort control Option 3A is difficult for the same reasons comparing
biological impacts is difficult: potential sector membership is unknown and some data are not clearly
understood. However, unlike with biological impacts, most of the administrative measures proposed in the
amendment (including ACLs and reporting requirements) will have economic effects as they increase
management and transaction costs.
The following tables summarize changes in total revenue (Table 5) and groundfish revenue (Table 6) by
homeport state under the Proposed Action effort control option for the commercial fishery. For the fishery
as a whole, the Proposed Action - Option 3A - has the least impact on total and groundfish revenues of the
alternatives to No Action that were considered. These estimates are often greeted with skepticism as underestimating the true revenue impacts of the large changes in allocated DAS. Many groundfish fishing
permits, however, have not used all their allocated DAS even under the restrictive allocations of recent
actions and so they are not as affected by the large change as it would appear. In addition, increasing trip
limits as proposed will probably benefits many vessels, and removing differential DAS counting areas also
mitigates to some extent the DAS reductions for some vessels. While these tables estimate the revenue
impacts on the fishery as a whole, impacts on individual vessels can be greater (or less). Generally, vessels
that are more dependent on groundfish for a high percentage of total fishing revenues can expect to have
larger impacts than indicated here.
Comparing alternatives based on overall impacts does not provide information on the distribution of
impacts across the fishery. For this reason the vessel level impacts are broken down into percentile groups,
and the average impacts for each group are reported. Examining the impacts in this way reveals that the
different alternatives affect fishermen in different ways; there was no single alternative to No Action
considered that is best or worst for all vessel categories. Table 7 summarizes vessel level impacts on gross
revenues. The Proposed Action - Option 3A - has a broad range of average adverse impacts; one
interpretation is that this option has very different impacts on different vessels while within the other
options considered the impacts are more similar across different groups of vessels.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

Executive Summary

Table 5 - Change in Total Revenue (by homeport state)
State
Proposed Action – Option 3A
CT
MA
ME
NH
NJ
NY
RI
Other
Total

-11.0%
-11.5%
-8.1%
-15.4%
-6.3%
-8.0%
-8.3%
-2.7%
-9.8%

Table 6 - Change in Groundfish Trip Revenue
State
Proposed Action – Option 3A
CT
MA
ME
NH
NJ
NY
RI
Other
Total

-22.1%
-14.3%
-9.0%
-18.5%
-23.1%
-28.3%
-22.8%
-8.7%
-15.2%

Table 7 – Comparison of vessel level impacts of gross revenues for effort control options
Option 3A

Impact Category
No Adverse Impact
Up to 20th Percentile
20th Percentile to Median
Median to 80th Percentile
Above 80th Percentile

Number
of
Vessels
58
91
135
135
90

Average
Adverse
Impact
-8%
2%
8%
15%
36%

Social Impacts
Overall, the Proposed Action is likely to have a negative effect on the important social factors identified by
Amendment 13 in the short-term. The further reductions in DAS, 24-hour clock, additional trip limits, and
restricted gear areas will make it more difficult for fishermen to maintain daily routines, operate in a safe
manner, and maintain a positive attitude towards the management program. Landings and revenues have
generally been declining for several years; there should be gradual increases in the next few years if stocks
rebuild as expected. The economic impacts of this action communities are expected to be severe and in
some cases may threaten the existence of fishing businesses in some communities. Social impacts will be
primarily the result of commercial effort control measures and formation of sectors. The impacts will fall
most heavily on vessels and communities that are most dependent on groundfish. These tend to be the
Maine, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts ports adjacent to the Gulf of Maine, though New Bedford is
also a port that will be adversely affected.
There are some communities where the impacts may not be as severe due to elements of the action that
attempt to mitigate impacts. The implementation of sectors, the elimination of the DAS transfer tax, and
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

Executive Summary

changes to SAPs may help some vessels and their communities adapt to the restrictions in this action. These
benefits may prove localized to small groups of vessels, however, and are unlikely to change the overall
perception that the social impacts of this action, in the short term, are largely negative. In part, the extent to
which fishery participants will join sectors will determine overall social impacts of this action. Sectors
provide a way for fishermen to fish more efficiently and with more control over their daily activities.
Extensive or increased sector participation may prove beneficial to important social factors as groundfish
rebuilding continues. Successful rebuilding of groundfish stocks should lead to future benefits for fishermen
and their communities but it is not clear that current fishery participants will reap those benefits.
Cumulative Effects
When considering the long-term positive trends in rebuilding in combination with further effort control
measures designed to maintain or achieve sustainable stocks, the cumulative impact of this action would be
positive. While the short-term impacts, particularly to the human communities VEC, continue to be
negative primarily due to economic losses, in the future as the status of the fishery improves and stocks
recover, the industry and communities that rely on fisheries will incur positive impacts.
The long-term trend for cumulative biological impacts has been positive. Among the groups of measures
considered in this action (updates to status determination criteria and formal rebuilding programs, fishery
program administration, and measures to meet mortality objectives), very few of the alternatives would
actually increase effort and among those that do, the increase is often on stocks such as haddock, that are
not overfished nor have overfishing occurring.
The primary impact of alternatives in this amendment on protected species is driven by the magnitude and
breadth of changes in fishing effort that are required. This also is typically the case for the cumulative
impacts to protected species and change in effort was the primary factor used in determining the cumulative
impact of the measures. Mostly positive cumulative impacts would be expected as a result of the measures
to reduce commercial fishing effort. This is because all of these measures would involve substantial effort
reductions which should reduce gear interactions, particularly when factored into past effort reductions and
management actions taken through the ESA, MMPA and Magnuson-Stevens Act. Other measures with
positive cumulative impacts include the preferred alternatives to implement several additional sectors and
modify existing sectors, which should lead to more efficient fishing operations and ultimately fewer gear
interactions with protected species.
While the environmental impacts analysis of this document is focused on the direct and indirect
impacts of this action on EFH, the cumulative effects assessment also considers non-fishing impacts such as
those summarized in Appendix I and factored into the baseline and summarized in Table 302. Overall, the
impact of non-fishing factors is difficult to measure. Because many groundfish species move throughout
the entire management area and spend a small or no portion of their life in the near-shore areas where nonfishing impacts are most acute, the effects are thought to be insignificant when viewed in the context of
cumulative impacts. However, species with greater inshore habitat reliance are likely more negatively
impacted. Another non-fishing factor that appears to have a negative impact on groundfish and other
fisheries resources is climate change. Although it is not possible to factor in the exact role that climate
change may be having on the groundfish fishery, when impacts such as increased acidification and rising
water temperatures are factored into the unsustainable mortality that has occurred at times in the past, it is
possible that the combined cumulative impacts have been negative.
Unlike other Valued Ecosystem Components VECs, there are very few measures that do not impact human
communities in some way. For measures found under updates to status determination criteria and formal
rebuilding programs, revised criteria are thought to have a positive cumulative impact because when
combined with past and current actions, overall revenues should increase when compared to the cumulative
impacts from the corresponding no action alternatives. Measures to control commercial fishery effort would
have the greatest negative cumulative impact, along with constrictions on recreational catches of GOM cod
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

Executive Summary

and haddock, an increase in the Atlantic halibut minimum size, and a prohibition on the retention of
wolffish. However, the implementation of additional sectors, by providing improved efficiency and
flexibility, along with the long-term impact that the implementation of AMs could have on rebuilding and
maintaining sustainable stocks, would have positive cumulative impacts.
Alternatives to the Proposed Action
For each case that a measure is proposed, the Council considered the No Action alternative. Many other
alternatives or options were considered for each element. These are briefly described below.
•

Revised Status Determination Criteria, ABC Control Rules, and Mortality Targets: The Council
considered not adopting revised status determination criteria and ABC control rules. This
alternative does not comply with the M-S Act requirement to use the best available science. The
Council also considered not revising mortality targets; choosing that alternative would mean that
for many stocks rebuilding requirements would not be met.

•

Annual Catch Limits: The Council considered not adopting ACLs (the No Action alternative). This
would not comply with M-S Act requirements.

•

Atlantic Wolffish: The Council considered not adding Atlantic wolffish to the management unit.
This would not comply with M-S Act requirements to rebuild overfished stocks. Two alternatives
were considered for EFH.

•

Sector administration: The Council considered not revising sector policies (the No Action
alternative). In addition, the Council considered not allowing CPH permits to join sectors, not
allowing ACE transfers, and different options for enforcement and monitoring requirements. There
were three alternatives considered for calculating PSCs (in addition to No Action): one option used
landings history and a capacity factor for stocks caught, another used landings history and a
capacity factor for all stocks, and a third used landings history and allocated DAS for all stocks.

•

Reporting Requirements: The Council considered not adopting area-specific reporting
requirements, and not accounting for discards when monitoring non-sector vessel catch.

•

Commercial and Recreational Component Allocation: The Council considered not making an
allocation (the No Action alternative). It also considered the period 1996-2006 as the basis for the
allocation, and considered making an allocation for Georges Bank cod, Gulf of Maine winter
flounder, pollock, and Southern New England/Mid-Atlantic winter flounder.

•

DAS Transfer and Leasing Programs: The No Action alternative was considered, ,which would
have retained the cap on the number of DAS a permit can acquire through leasing, the conservation
tax on DAS transfers, and the prohibition that prevented a permit in the CPH category from
participating in either program. The Council also considered applying the same conservation tax to
DAS leases as is used in the transfer program; and considered removing the conservation tax on
DAS transfers only for a defined period.

•

Special Management Programs: The Council considered the No Action alternative. This included
not modifying the Category B DAS program to reflect current stock status, not extending the
Eastern U.S./Canada haddock SAP, not expanding the area or season for the CAI Hook Gear
Haddock SAP, and not modifying the CAI Yellowtail Flounder SAP.

•

The Council considered not modifying the periodic adjustment process, and not allowing the
simultaneous possession of a limited access multispecies and scallop permit. The Council also

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

Executive Summary

considered allowing catch history to accrue to the permit that lands the fish after implementation of
Amendment 16. All of these are No Action alternatives.
•

Measure to Control Fishing Mortality:
o

For commercial vessels that do not join sectors, the Council considered the following effort
control systems:
No Action: This would result in a change in the Category A and Category B DAS
split (45/55), or an 18 percent reduction in allocated Category A DAS) unless
certain conditions are met: overfishing is not occurring on any stock and additional
fishing mortality reductions are not needed to rebuild any stock.
Option 2A: A combination of differential DAS and trip limits on some stocks. The
default change in the Category A/Category B DAS split that will be implemented
May 1, 2009 is retained. The existing year round, rolling, seasonal, or habitat
closed areas would not be modified. Gear requirements while fishing on a Category
A DAS would remain in effect. Further measures may be needed to meet pollock
rebuilding requirements. In order to meet pollock rebuilding objectives, the
Council also considered a different version of this option that would have reduced
DAS by 30 or 35 percent, and would have adjusted trip limits and differential DAS
counting areas.
Option 4: A reduction in Category A DAS by 40 percent from FW 42 allocations,
paired with the addition of an area in southern New England where only specific
gear can be used while fishing on a groundfish DAS. This results in a Category
A/Category B DAS split of 33/67. In the gear areas, gear may be restricted to those
gears that do not catch yellowtail flounder and winter flounder. Most other current
measures would remain, including seasonal and rolling closures and gear
requirements. Further measures would have been needed to meet pollock
rebuilding requirements.
The Council considered requiring trawl vessels to use a net equipped with drop chains in
the SNE area by any vessel using a net with a codend of less than six and a half inches. An
exception was included for vessels using a net with large mesh panels in the front of the
net.
The No Action alternative was considered that would have not reduced the minimum size
of haddock, and that would not have adopted the GOM Sink Gillnet Haddock Pilot
Program.
The Council considered not implementing additional sectors and not modifying the two
existing sectors.

Recreational Measures:
The No Action alternative would not have allowed landing of fillets with the skin
off, would not reduce the haddock minimum size, and would not alter the season
for landing GOM cod.
Subject to the decision on the recreational/commercial component allocation, the
Council considered increasing the minimum size for GOM cod, reducing the bag
limit to six fish, and reducing the season by one month. For GOM haddock,
increasing the minimum size to 21 inches, a bag limit of nine fish, and reducing the
minimum size to 18 inches and imposing a seven fish bag limit were considered.
The Council considered allowing the landing of fillets with the skin off but with
fillets meeting the minimum legal size.

Accountability Measures (AMs): The Council considered not adopting AMs for either the
commercial or recreational fishery. For the recreational fishery, the Council considered two

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

Executive Summary

different processes for implementing AMs. The first would have allowed NMFS to
implement AMs without Council input, while the second would have required the Council
to submit the AMs to NMFS.
Impacts of Alternatives to the Proposed Action
As already noted, several of the alternatives would not have met current requirements of the M-S Act.
Specific impacts are described in section 7.0. Only major biological and economic impacts are highlighted
below.
Biological Impacts
Certain measures, such as not adopting the adoption of revised status determination criteria, will have
impacts that vary among stocks. For some stocks, the target biomass would be lower than the value in the
Proposed Action, however, for others the Amendment 13 value is higher. Not adopting these criteria, and
not revising mortality targets to meet them, would mean rebuilding would not be achieved.
Each of the effort control options for the commercial fishery will have different impacts on each stock.
With respect to the effort control measures for vessels that do not join sectors, the No Action alternative and
Option 4A would not have met the mortality objectives of the amendment. Option 2A would only meet the
objectives if it was modified with additional DAS reductions, changes to differential DAS counting areas,
and modified trip limits (Table 7).
Table 8 – Summary of changes in exploitation expected from effort control options
Option
Option
Species
AREA
Needed
No
Option 2A 2A
2A
Difference Action
Action
W/30%
W/35%
%
%
reduction reduction
Difference Difference in DAS
in DAS
COD
COD
HADDOCK
HADDOCK
WINTER
WINTER
WINTER
PLAICE
WITCH
WHK
WIND
WIND
YTF
YTF
YTF
POLLOCK
REDFISH

GBANK
GM
GBANK
GM
GBANK
GM
SNEMA
ALL
ALL
ALL
NORTH
SOUTH
CCGOM
GBANK
SNEMA
ALL
ALL

-50%
-37%
202%
24%
48%
-100%
39%
-46%
28%

-34%
-15%
-39%
-66%
271%

-17%
-16%
-19%
-18%
-19%
-15%
-20%
-16%
-16%
-17%
-19%
-21%
-18%
-20%
-18%
-17%
-18%

-51%
-22%
-45%
-22%
-34%
-14%
-73%
-38%
-36%
-40%
-30%
-44%
-39%
-32%
-55%
-40%
-41%

-45.9%
-46.9%
-42.1%
-50.4%
-41.2%
-34.1%
-67.5%
-56.1%
-52.6%
-63.9%
-43.0%
-43.5%
-50.3%
-37.6%
-45.4%
-61.4%
-63.5%

-49.8%
-50.8%
-46.4%
-54.3%
-45.6%
-38.8%
-70.3%
-59.2%
-56.0%
-66.7%
-47.0%
-48.1%
-54.5%
-42.4%
-48.7%
-64.1%
-66.3%

Option 4
Action
%
Difference
-41%
-34%
-42%
-39%
-36%
-35%
-60%
-36%
-37%
-39%
-43%
-56%
-47%
-41%
-45%
-38%
-39%

Not adopting changes to sector policies, and not implementing additional sectors, would result in a less
effective sector management program and fewer vessels operating under the hard quotas adopted by sectors.
This would increase the uncertainty associated with achieving mortality targets and could delay rebuilding.
If ACLs and the accompanying AMs were not adopted, the lack of a system to identify appropriate catch
levels and rapidly adjust measures should they be exceeded (or to prevent them from being exceeded)
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

Executive Summary

would also make it less likely that rebuilding of groundfish stocks would be achieved, and that overfishing
would be ended.
Economic Impacts
With respect to economic impacts of the alternatives to the Proposed Action, there is little doubt that in
some instances the No Action alternative would lead to higher revenues for the commercial fishery in the
short term. For example, as shown in Table 9 and Table 10, the No Action effort control alternative for non
–sector vessels has less impact on total revenues than the other effort control options. Options 2A and 4
have more impacts than the Proposed Action. The No Action alternative would also have fewer economic
impacts on recreational vessels in the short term, as opportunities to target GOM cod would not be reduced.
But because the No Action alternative would delay or perhaps prevent rebuilding, these short term gains
may not exceed the benefits of the rebuilding program.
Table 9 - Change in Total Revenue (by homeport state)
State
No Action
2A
4
CT
MA
ME
NH
NJ
NY
RI
Other
Total

-6.1%
-9.7%
-10.6%
-9.6%
-3.3%
-3.6%
-4.5%
-3.2%
-7.7%

-11.7%
-19.6%
-22.4%
-10.3%
0.5%
-5.5%
-7.5%
-7.3%
-14.7%

-14.8%
-23.1%
-25.8%
-22.0%
-8.3%
-8.8%
-10.7%
-7.9%
-18.5%

Table 10 - Change in Groundfish Trip Revenue
State
No Action
2A
4
CT
MA
ME
NH
NJ
NY
RI
Other
Total

-12.3%
-12.1%
-11.8%
-11.5%
-12.2%
-12.8%
-12.4%
-10.3%
-12.1%

-23.4%
-24.5%
-24.8%
-12.3%
1.8%
-19.5%
-20.8%
-23.4%
-22.9%

-29.7%
-28.9%
-28.6%
-26.4%
-30.4%
-31.1%
-29.5%
-25.1%
-28.9%

If revisions to sector policies were not adopted, and additional sectors were not implemented, then the
mitigating benefits of sectors would be available to fewer vessels. While it is accurate that under the No
Action alternative sectors would also not be subject to the increased costs of the enhanced sector reporting
systems, this would not matter to the fishery as a whole because only the two existing sectors would benefit.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

Contents
Table of Contents

2.0
2.1

Contents
Table of Contents

1.0

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2.0

CONTENTS

2.1

Table of Contents

2.2

Tables

2.3

Figures

2.4

List of Acronyms

3.0

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

3.1
Brief History of Prior Management Actions
3.1.1 Other actions affecting the fishery
3.1.1.1
Actions to Minimize Interactions with Protected Species
3.1.1.2
Harbor Porpoise Take Reduction Plan
3.1.1.3
Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan
3.1.1.4
Atlantic Trawl Gear Take Reduction Team
3.1.1.5
EFH Omnibus Amendment

53
58
58
58
59
60
60

3.2

Purpose and Need for Action

3.3

Notice of Intent and Scoping Process

3.4

Goals and Objectives

3.5

Context of Existing Management System

4.0

PROPOSED ACTION

4.1
Updates to Status Determination Criteria, Formal Rebuilding Programs, and ABC Control Rules
4.1.1 Revised Status Determination Criteria
4.1.2 ABC Control Rules
4.1.3 Revised mortality targets for formal rebuilding programs
4.1.3.1
Revised Rebuilding Mortality Targets
4.1.3.2
Mortality Reductions to Achieve Rebuilding Targets

75
75
77
79
79
85

4.2
Fishery Program Administration
4.2.1 Annual Catch Limits
4.2.1.1
Definitions
4.2.1.2
Administrative Process for Setting Multispecies ACLs
4.2.1.3
ACL Sub-Components

87
87
87
88
90

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

Contents
Table of Contents
4.2.1.4
Impacts of an ACL Overage
91
4.2.2 Addition of Atlantic Wolffish to the Management Unit
94
4.2.2.1
Status Determination Criteria
94
4.2.2.2
Essential Fish Habitat
94
4.2.2.2.1 Introduction
94
4.2.2.2.2 EFH Designation for Atlantic Wolffish
95
4.2.3 Sector administration provisions
98
4.2.3.1
Sector Definition/Formation of a Sector
98
4.2.3.2
Preparation of a Sector Formation Proposal and Operations Plan
99
4.2.3.3
Allocation of Resources
101
4.2.3.3.1 General
101
4.2.3.3.2 Guidance on Sector Overages
102
4.2.3.3.3 U.S./Canada Area
103
4.2.3.3.4 Sector Baseline Calculations/Potential Sector Contributions
104
4.2.3.3.4.1 Option 1 - Landings History Only FY 1996 – FY 2006
104
4.2.3.3.4.2 Option 5 – GB Cod PSCs for Existing Sectors
105
4.2.3.4
Mortality/Conservation Controls
105
4.2.3.5
Monitoring and Enforcement
106
4.2.3.5.1 Revised Monitoring and Enforcement Provisions - General
106
4.2.3.5.2 Enforcement
107
4.2.3.5.3 Sector Monitoring Requirements
108
4.2.3.5.4 Standards for Sector Monitoring and Reporting Service Providers
111
4.2.3.6
Sector Annual Report Requirements
114
4.2.3.7
Transfer of Annual Catch Entitlements (ACE)
115
4.2.3.8
Sector Participation in Special Management Programs
116
4.2.3.8.1 Special Management Program Reporting Requirements
116
4.2.3.8.2 Eastern U.S. Canada Haddock SAP
116
4.2.3.8.3 Closed Area II Yellowtail Flounder SAP
117
4.2.3.8.4 Closed Area I Hook Gear Haddock SAP
117
4.2.3.9
Interaction of Sector with Common Pool Vessels
117
4.2.3.10
Movement between Sectors
121
4.2.4 Reporting Requirements
121
4.2.4.1
Area-specific Reporting Requirements
121
4.2.4.2
Accounting for Discards for Non-Sector Vessels
124
4.2.5 Allocation of Groundfish to the Commercial and Recreational Groundfish Fisheries
125
4.2.6 Changes to the DAS Transfer and DAS Leasing Programs
126
4.2.6.1
DAS Transfer Program Conservation Tax
126
4.2.6.2
Eligibility of Permits in the Confirmation of Permit History (CPH) Category to Participate in the DAS
Leasing and Transfer Programs
126
4.2.6.3
Removal of the DAS Leasing Cap
127
4.2.7 Special Management Programs
127
4.2.7.1
Incidental Catch TACs
127
4.2.7.2
Closed Area I Hook Gear Haddock SAP Revisions
128
4.2.7.3
Reauthorization of the Eastern U.S./Canada Haddock SAP
129
4.2.7.4
Closed Area II Yellowtail Flounder SAP
130
4.2.7.5
SNE/MA Winter Flounder SAP
131
4.2.7.5.1 Program Revisions Due to Updated Stock Status
131
4.2.7.6
Approval of Additional Gear
131
4.2.8 Periodic Adjustment Process
132
4.2.9 Simultaneous Possession of a Limited Access Multispecies and Scallop Permit
132
4.2.10
Catch History
133
4.3
Measures to Meet Mortality Objectives
4.3.1 Introduction
4.3.2 Commercial Fishery Measures
4.3.2.1
Non-sector Vessels Option 3A – 24 hour clock, Restricted Gear Areas
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

133
133
133
133

Contents
Table of Contents
4.3.2.2
GOM Haddock Sink Gillnet Pilot Program
4.3.2.3
Haddock Minimum Size
4.3.3 Recreational Fishery Measures
4.3.3.1
Provisions for Landing Fillets
4.3.3.2
Removal of the Limit on Hooks
4.3.3.3
Measures to Reduce Mortality
4.3.3.3.1 GOM Cod
4.3.3.3.2 Haddock
4.3.4 Atlantic Halibut Minimum Size
4.3.5 Prohibition on Retention of Atlantic Wolffish
4.3.6 Implementation of Additional Sectors/Modifications to Existing Sectors
4.3.6.1
Modifications to the Georges Bank Cod Hook Sector
4.3.6.2
Modifications to the Fixed Gear Sector
4.3.6.3
Sustainable Harvest Sector
4.3.6.4
Port Clyde Community Groundfish Sector
4.3.6.5
Northeast Fishery Sector I
4.3.6.6
Northeast Fishery Sector II
4.3.6.7
Northeast Fishery Sector III
4.3.6.8
Northeast Fishery Sector IV
4.3.6.9
Northeast Fishery Sector V
4.3.6.10
Northeast Fishery Sector VI
4.3.6.11
Northeast Fishery Sector VII
4.3.6.12
Northeast Fishery Sector VIII
4.3.6.13
Northeast Fishery Sector IX
4.3.6.14
Northeast Fishery Sector X
4.3.6.15
Northeast Fishery Sector XI
4.3.6.16
Northeast Fishery Sector XII
4.3.6.17
Tri-State Sector
4.3.6.18
Northeast Fishery Sector XIII
4.3.6.19
Northeast Coastal Communities Sector
4.3.7 Accountability Measures
4.3.7.1
Commercial Groundfish Fishing Vessel Accountability Measures
4.3.7.1.1 Common Pool Vessels Accountability Measure – Differential DAS/DAS Adjustment
4.3.7.1.2 Common Pool Vessels Accountability Measures – "Hard" Total Allowable Catch (TAC)
4.3.7.2
Recreational Fishery Accountability Measures
4.3.7.3
Multispecies Sector Accountability Measures

5.0

ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION

136
137
137
138
138
138
139
139
139
139
140
140
140
141
141
141
142
142
143
143
143
144
144
145
145
146
146
146
147
147
148
149
149
155
168
169

171

5.1
Updates to Status Determination Criteria and Formal Rebuilding Programs
5.1.1 Revised Status Determination Criteria
5.1.1.1
Option 1 – No Action
5.1.2 ABC Control Rules
5.1.3 Revised mortality targets for formal rebuilding programs
5.1.3.1
Option 1 – No Action

171
171
171
174
174
174

5.2
Fishery Program Administration
5.2.1 Annual Catch Limits
5.2.1.1
Option 1 – No Action
5.2.2 Addition of Atlantic Wolffish to the Management Unit
5.2.2.1
Option 1 – No Action
5.2.2.2
Essential Fish Habitat for Atlantic Wolffish
5.2.2.2.1 Introduction
5.2.2.2.2 EFH Designation Options for Atlantic Wolffish
5.2.3 Sector administration provisions

177
177
177
177
177
177
177
177
184

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

Contents
Table of Contents
5.2.3.1
Sector Definition/Formation of a Sector
185
5.2.3.2
Preparation of a Sector Formation Proposal and Operations Plan
185
5.2.3.2.1 Option 1 - No Action
185
5.2.3.3
Allocation of Resources
186
5.2.3.3.1 General
186
5.2.3.3.2 Guidance on Sector Overages
187
5.2.3.3.3 U.S./Canada Area
187
5.2.3.3.3.1 Option 1 - No Action
187
5.2.3.3.4 Sector Baseline Calculations/Potential Sector Contributions
188
5.2.3.3.4.1 No Action Alternative (Status Quo/Amendment 13)
188
5.2.3.3.4.2 Option 2 - 50% Landings History and 50% Vessel Baseline Capacity for Landed Stocks FY
1996 – FY 2006
188
5.2.3.3.4.3 Option 3 - 50% Landings History and 50% Vessel Baseline Capacity for All Stocks FY 1996
– FY 2006 188
5.2.3.3.4.4 Option 4 - 50% Landings History and 50% A DAS for All Stocks FY 1996 – FY 2006
189
5.2.3.4
Mortality/Conservation Controls
190
5.2.3.5
Monitoring and Enforcement
190
5.2.3.5.1 No Action
190
5.2.3.5.2 Enforcement
191
5.2.3.5.3 Sector Monitoring Requirements
192
5.2.3.5.4 Standards for Sector Monitoring and Reporting Service Providers
192
5.2.3.6
Sector Annual Reports
192
5.2.3.6.1 No Action
192
5.2.3.7
Transfer of Annual Catch Entitlements (ACE)
192
5.2.3.7.1 Option 1 - No Action
192
5.2.3.8
Sector Participation in Special Management Programs
193
5.2.3.8.1 No Action
193
5.2.3.8.2 Closed Area I Hook Gear Haddock SAP
193
5.2.3.9
Interaction of Sector with Common Pool Vessels
193
5.2.4 Reporting Requirements
194
5.2.4.1
Option 1 – No Action
194
5.2.5 Allocation of Groundfish to the Commercial and Recreational Groundfish Fisheries
194
5.2.5.1
Option 1 – No Action
194
5.2.5.2
Option 2 – Commercial and recreational groundfish allocation for certain stocks
194
5.2.6 Changes to the DAS Transfer and DAS Leasing Programs
195
5.2.6.1
Option 1 – No Action
195
5.2.6.2
Option 2 - DAS Transfer Program Conservation Tax
195
5.2.6.3
Option 3 - DAS Leasing Program Conservation Tax
196
5.2.6.4
Option 4 - DAS Transfer Program Conservation Tax Exemption Window
196
5.2.7 Special Management Programs
196
5.2.7.1
Incidental Catch TACs
196
5.2.7.2
Closed Area I Hook Gear Haddock SAP Revisions
197
5.2.7.2.1 Option 1 – No Action
197
5.2.7.3
Eastern U.S./Canada Haddock SAP
197
5.2.7.3.1 Option 1 - No Action
197
5.2.7.4
Closed Area II Yellowtail Flounder SAP
197
5.2.7.4.1 Option 1 – No Modifications
197
5.2.7.5
SNE/MA Winter Flounder SAP
197
5.2.7.6
Category B DAS Program
198
5.2.7.6.1 Option 1 – No Action
198
5.2.7.7
Approval of Additional Gear
198
5.2.7.7.1 Option 1 - No Action
198
5.2.8 Periodic Adjustment Process
198
5.2.8.1
Option 1 – No Action
198
5.2.9 Simultaneous Possession of a Limited Access Multispecies and Scallop Permit
198
5.2.9.1
Option 1 - No Action
198
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

Contents
Table of Contents
5.2.10

Catch History

199

5.3
Measures to Meet Mortality Objectives
5.3.1 Introduction
5.3.2 Commercial Fishery Measures
5.3.2.1
No Action
5.3.2.2
Non-sector Vessels Option 2A – Differential DAS and Trip Limits
5.3.2.3
Non-Sector Vessels Option 4 –DAS Reduction and Restricted Gear Areas
5.3.2.4
SNE/MA Small Mesh Fisheries Gear Requirement
5.3.2.5
GOM Haddock Sink Gillnet Pilot Program
5.3.2.5.1 Option 1 – No Action
5.3.2.6
Haddock Minimum Size
5.3.2.6.1 Option 1 – No Action
5.3.3 Recreational Management Measures
5.3.3.1
Provisions for Landing Fillets
5.3.3.2
Removal of the Limit on Hooks
5.3.3.3
Measures to Reduce Mortality
5.3.3.3.1 GOM Cod Options
5.3.3.3.2 GOM Haddock Options
5.3.4 Atlantic Halibut Minimum Size
5.3.4.1
Option 1 – No Action
5.3.5 Retention of Atlantic Wolffish
5.3.5.1
Option 1 – No Action
5.3.6 Implementation of Additional Sectors/Modifications to Existing Sectors
5.3.6.1
No Action
5.3.7 Accountability Measures
5.3.7.1
Commercial Groundfish Fishing Vessel Accountability Measures
5.3.7.1.1 Common Pool Vessel Accountability Measure Alternative 3 – No Action
5.3.7.2
Recreational Fishery Accountability Measures
5.3.7.2.1 Option 1
5.3.7.2.2 Option 2
5.3.7.2.3 Option 4 – No Action
5.3.7.3
Multispecies Sector Accountability Measures

199
199
199
199
204
208
209
213
213
213
213
213
213
214
214
215
215
215
215
216
216
216
216
216
216
216
216
216
218
219
219

5.4
Other Alternatives Considered
5.4.1 Research Set-Aside Program
5.4.2 Effort Control Alternatives
5.4.3 Alternative Management Systems
5.4.4 Miscellaneous Measures

220
220
221
221
221

6.0

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

223

6.1
Physical and Biological Environment
6.1.1 Gulf of Maine
6.1.1.1
Physical Environment
6.1.1.2
Benthic Invertebrates
6.1.1.3
Demersal Fish
6.1.2 Georges Bank
6.1.2.1
Physical Environment
6.1.2.2
Invertebrates
6.1.2.3
Demersal Fish
6.1.3 Mid-Atlantic Bight
6.1.3.1
Physical Environment
6.1.3.2
Invertebrates
6.1.3.3
Demersal Fish

223
223
223
229
229
233
233
236
236
237
237
242
242

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

Contents
Table of Contents
6.1.4 Continental Slope
6.1.4.1
Physical Environment
6.1.4.2
Invertebrates
6.1.4.3
Demersal Fish
6.1.5 Essential Fish Habitat
6.1.6 Habitat Effects of Fishing
6.1.6.1
Otter Trawls – Mud
6.1.6.1.1 Physical Effects
6.1.6.1.2 Biological Effects
6.1.6.2
Otter Trawls – Sand
6.1.6.2.1 Physical effects
6.1.6.2.2 Biological effects
6.1.6.3
Otter Trawls – Gravel/Rocky Substrate
6.1.6.3.1 Physical effects
6.1.6.3.2 Biological effects
6.1.6.4
Otter Trawls – Mixed Substrates
6.1.6.4.1 Physical effects
6.1.6.4.2 Biological effects
6.1.6.5
New Bedford Scallop Dredges – Sand
6.1.6.5.1 Physical effects
6.1.6.5.2 Biological effects
6.1.6.6
New Bedford Scallop Dredges - Mixed Substrates
6.1.6.6.1 Physical effects
6.1.6.7
Hydraulic Clam Dredges – Sand
6.1.6.7.1 Physical effects
6.1.6.7.2 Biological effects
6.1.6.8
Hydraulic Clam Dredges - Mixed Substrates
6.1.7 Description of the Managed Species
6.1.7.1
Atlantic Wolffish Basic Biology and Ecology
6.1.8 Regulated Groundfish Stock Status
6.1.9 Non-Groundfish Stock Status
6.1.9.1
Monkfish
6.1.9.2
Dogfish
6.1.9.3
Skates
6.1.10
Marine Mammals and Protected Species
6.1.10.1
Species Present in the Area
6.1.10.2
Species Potentially Affected
6.1.10.3
Sea Turtles
6.1.10.4
Large Cetaceans
6.1.10.5
Small Cetaceans
6.1.10.6
Pinnipeds
6.1.10.7
Species Not Likely to be Affected
6.1.10.8
Interactions Between Gear and Protected Resources
6.2
Human Communities and the Fishery
6.2.1 Overview
6.2.2 Comparison of Catches to Target TACs
6.2.3 Commercial Harvesting Sector
6.2.3.1
Commercial Harvesting Sector Data Caveats
6.2.3.2
DAS Allocations and Use
6.2.3.3
Landings and revenues
6.2.3.3.1 Landings and Revenues by Permit Category
6.2.3.3.2 Landings and Revenues by Vessel Length Class
6.2.3.3.3 Landings and Revenues by Gear Type
6.2.3.3.4 Landings and Revenues by Home Port State
6.2.3.3.5 Landings and Revenues by Port Group
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

247
247
251
252
254
262
264
264
264
265
265
266
266
267
267
267
267
267
268
268
268
268
268
269
269
269
270
270
271
274
296
296
296
296
296
297
299
299
299
300
301
301
303
307
307
309
312
315
316
324
324
328
330
334
337

Contents
Table of Contents
6.2.3.3.6 Landings and Revenues for Primary Fishing Ports
6.2.3.4
Vessel Trip Costs
6.2.3.5
Category B (regular) Day-at-Sea Program
6.2.3.6
Haddock Separator Trawl Performance
6.2.3.7
Days-At-Sea Leasing and Transfer Programs
6.2.3.7.1 DAS Leasing Program
6.2.3.7.2 DAS Transfer Program
6.2.3.8
Commercial Fishing Vessel Safety
6.2.4 Sectors
6.2.4.1
GB Cod Hook Sector
6.2.4.1.1 Landings and Revenues
6.2.4.2
GB Cod Fixed Gear Sector
6.2.4.2.1 Landings and Revenues
6.2.4.2.2 Discards
6.2.4.3
Summary
6.2.5 Recreational Harvesting Component
6.2.5.1
Winter Flounder
6.2.5.2
Haddock
6.2.5.3
Pollock
6.2.5.4
Cod
6.2.5.5
Party/Charter Permits
6.2.6 Wholesale Trade and Processing Component
6.2.6.1
Seafood Dealers
6.2.6.2
Seafood Processing
6.2.7 Bycatch
6.2.7.1
Commercial Fishery Discards
6.2.7.1.1 Discard estimates included in a catch-at-age matrix
6.2.7.1.2 Stocks for Which No Estimates Are Provided
6.2.7.2
Recreational Fishery Discards
6.2.8 Communities
6.2.8.1
Overview
6.2.8.2
Port Group Characterizations

7.0

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES

343
346
347
353
358
358
364
369
375
375
375
379
379
380
385
386
386
394
401
408
418
429
429
433
434
437
437
460
460
465
465
470

481

7.1
Analytic Approach and Limitations
7.1.1 Uncertainty About Sector Participation
7.1.2 Closed Area/Effort Control Analysis
7.1.3 Combination of Quantitative Results
7.1.4 Definition of the No Action Alternative
7.1.5 Limitations

481
481
482
484
484
485

7.2
Biological Impacts of the Alternatives
7.2.1 Biological Impacts of the Proposed Action
7.2.1.1
Updates to Status Determination Criteria and Formal Rebuilding Programs
7.2.1.1.1 Revised Status Determination Criteria
7.2.1.1.2 ABC Control Rules
7.2.1.1.3 Revised Mortality Targets for Formal Rebuilding Programs
7.2.1.1.3.1 Revised Rebuilding Mortality Targets
7.2.1.1.3.2 Mortality Reductions to Achieve Rebuilding Targets
7.2.1.2
Fishery Program Administration
7.2.1.2.1 Annual Catch Limits
7.2.1.2.2 Addition of Atlantic Wolffish to the Management Unit
7.2.1.2.3 Sector Administration Provisions
7.2.1.2.3.1 Allocation of Resources

485
485
485
485
486
487
487
496
500
500
501
502
502

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

Contents
Table of Contents
7.2.1.2.3.2 U.S./Canada Area
7.2.1.2.3.3 Monitoring and Enforcement
7.2.1.2.3.4 Transfer of Annual Catch Entitlements
7.2.1.2.3.5 Participation in Special Management Programs
7.2.1.2.3.6 Interaction with Common Pool Vessels/Universal Exemptions
7.2.1.2.3.7 Movement Between Sectors
7.2.1.2.4 Reporting Requirements
7.2.1.2.4.1 Option 2 – Area-Specific Reporting Requirements
7.2.1.2.4.2 Option 3 – Accounting for Discards by Non-Sector Vessels
7.2.1.2.5 Commercial and Recreational Allocation for Certain Stocks
7.2.1.2.6 Changes to the DAS Transfer and Leasing Programs
7.2.1.2.6.1 DAS Transfer Program Conservation Tax Change
7.2.1.2.6.2 Eligibility of Permits in the CPH Category to Participate in the Transfer and Leasing
Programs
512
7.2.1.2.6.3 Removal of the DAS Leasing Cap
7.2.1.2.7 Special Management Programs
7.2.1.2.7.1 Closed Area I Hook Gear Haddock SAP
7.2.1.2.7.2 Eastern U.S./Canada Haddock SAP
7.2.1.2.7.3 CA II Yellowtail Flounder SAP
7.2.1.2.7.4 SNE/MA Winter Flounder SAP
7.2.1.2.7.5 Category B (regular) DAS Program
7.2.1.2.8 Periodic Adjustment Process
7.2.1.2.9 Simultaneous Possession of a Limited Access Multispecies and Scallop Permit
7.2.1.2.10 Catch History
7.2.1.3
Measures to Meet Mortality Objectives
7.2.1.3.1 Commercial Fishery Measures
7.2.1.3.1.1 Option 3A – 24 – Hour Clock and Restricted Gear Areas
7.2.1.3.1.2 Comparison of the Biological Impacts of Effort Control Options
7.2.1.3.1.3 SNE/MA Small Mesh Fisheries Gear Requirements
7.2.1.3.1.4 GOM Haddock Sink Gillnet Pilot Program
7.2.1.3.1.5 Haddock Minimum Size
7.2.1.3.2 Recreational Fishery Management Measures
7.2.1.3.2.1 Provisions for Landing Fillets
7.2.1.3.2.2 Removal of the Limit on Hooks
7.2.1.3.2.3 Measures to Reduce Mortality
7.2.1.3.3 Atlantic Halibut Minimum Size
7.2.1.3.4 Prohibition on Retention of Atlantic Wolffish
7.2.1.3.5 Implementation of Additional Sectors/Modifications to Existing Sectors
7.2.1.3.6 Accountability Measures
7.2.1.3.6.1 Commercial Groundfish Common Pool Accountability Measures
7.2.1.3.6.2 Recreational Groundfish Fishing Accountability Measures
7.2.2 Biological Impacts of Alternatives to the Proposed Action
7.2.2.1
Updates to Status Determination Criteria and Formal Rebuilding Programs
7.2.2.1.1 Revised Status Determination Criteria
7.2.2.1.2 ABC Control Rules
7.2.2.1.3 Revised Mortality Targets for Formal Rebuilding Programs
7.2.2.1.3.1 Option 1 – No Action
7.2.2.2
Fishery Program Administration
7.2.2.2.1 Annual Catch Limits
7.2.2.2.2 Addition of Atlantic Wolffish to the Management Unit
7.2.2.2.3 Sector Administration Provisions
7.2.2.2.3.1 Allocation of Resources
7.2.2.2.3.2 U.S./Canada Area
7.2.2.2.3.3 Monitoring and Enforcement
7.2.2.2.3.4 Transfer of Catch Entitlements
7.2.2.2.3.5 Participation in Special Management Programs
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

503
503
505
506
506
510
510
510
511
511
511
511
513
513
514
516
516
520
520
522
522
523
523
523
523
527
528
532
537
537
538
538
538
539
539
540
550
550
554
554
554
554
554
555
555
561
561
561
561
562
562
563
564
565

Contents
Table of Contents
7.2.2.2.3.6 Interaction with Common Pool Vessels/Universal Exemptions
7.2.2.2.3.7 Movement Between Sectors
7.2.2.2.4 Reporting Requirements
7.2.2.2.4.1 Allocation of Groundfish to the Commercial and Recreational Groundfish Fisheries
7.2.2.2.4.2 Option 1 – No Action
7.2.2.2.5 Changes to the DAS Transfer and Leasing Programs
7.2.2.2.5.1 Option 1 - No Action
7.2.2.2.5.2 Option 2 – DAS Transfer Program Conservation Tax Change
7.2.2.2.5.3 Option 3 – DAS Leasing Program Conservation Tax
7.2.2.2.5.4 Option 4 – DAS Transfer Program Conservation Tax Exemption Window
7.2.2.2.6 Special Management Programs
7.2.2.2.6.1 Closed Area I Hook Gear Haddock SAP
7.2.2.2.6.2 Eastern U.S./Canada Haddock SAP
7.2.2.2.6.3 CA II Yellowtail Flounder SAP
7.2.2.2.6.4 SNE/MA Winter Flounder SAP
7.2.2.2.6.5 Category B (regular) DAS Program
7.2.2.2.7 Periodic Adjustment Process
7.2.2.2.8 Simultaneous Possession of a Limited Access Multispecies and Scallop Permit
7.2.2.2.9 Catch History
7.2.2.3
Measures to Meet Mortality Objectives
7.2.2.3.1 Commercial Fishery Measures
7.2.2.3.1.1 No Action
7.2.2.3.1.2 Option 2A – Differential DAS and Trip Limits
7.2.2.3.1.3 Option 4 – DAS reduction and Restricted Gear Areas
7.2.2.3.1.4 SNE/MA Small Mesh Fisheries Gear Requirements
7.2.2.3.1.5 GOM Haddock Sink Gillnet Pilot Program
7.2.2.3.1.6 Haddock Minimum Size
7.2.2.3.2 Recreational Fishery Management Measures
7.2.2.3.2.1 Provisions for Landing Fillets
7.2.2.3.2.2 Removal of the Limit on Hooks
7.2.2.3.2.3 Measures to Reduce Mortality
7.2.2.3.3 Atlantic Halibut Minimum Size
7.2.2.3.4 Prohibition on Retention of Atlantic Wolffish
7.2.2.3.5 Implementation of Additional Sectors/Modifications to Existing Sectors
7.2.2.3.6 Accountability Measures
7.2.2.3.6.1 Commercial Groundfish Common Pool Accountability Measures
7.2.2.3.6.2 Recreational Groundfish Fishing Accountability Measures
7.3
Protected Species Impacts of the Alternatives
7.3.1 Protected Species Impacts of the Proposed Action
7.3.1.1
Updates to Status Determination Criteria and Formal Rebuilding Programs
7.3.1.2
Fishery Program Administration Measures
7.3.1.2.1 Annual Catch Limits
7.3.1.2.2 Addition of Atlantic Wolffish to the Management Unit
7.3.1.2.3 Sector Administration Provisions
7.3.1.2.4 Reporting Requirements
7.3.1.2.5 Allocation of Groundfish to the Commercial and Recreational Groundfish Fisheries
7.3.1.2.6 Changes to the DAS Transfer and DAS Leasing Programs
7.3.1.2.6.1 Option 2 – DAS Transfer Program Conservation Tax
7.3.1.2.7 Removal of the DAS Leasing Cap
7.3.1.2.8 Eligibility of CPH Permits to Participate in the Leasing Program
7.3.1.2.9 Special Management Programs
7.3.1.2.9.1 Incidental Catch TACs
7.3.1.2.9.2 Closed Area I Hook Gear Haddock SAP Revisions
7.3.1.2.9.3 Eastern U.S./Canada Haddock SAP Area
7.3.1.2.9.4 Closed Area II Yellowtail Flounder SAP
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

565
565
565
566
566
566
566
567
567
567
568
568
568
568
568
569
569
569
569
569
569
569
570
573
576
577
577
577
577
578
578
580
581
581
581
581
581
582
582
582
583
583
583
583
590
590
591
591
591
591
591
591
592
592
593

Contents
Table of Contents
7.3.1.2.9.5 SNE/MA Winter Flounder SAP
7.3.1.2.9.6 Category B DAS Revisions
7.3.1.2.10 Periodic Adjustment Process
7.3.1.2.11 Simultaneous Possession of a Limited Access Multispecies and Scallop Permit
7.3.1.2.12 Catch History
7.3.1.3
Measures to Meet Mortality Objectives
7.3.1.3.1 Common Pool Vessel Option 3A
7.3.1.3.2 SNE/MA Small Mesh Fisheries Gear Requirement
7.3.1.3.3 GOM Haddock Sink Gillnet Pilot Program
7.3.1.3.4 Haddock Minimum Size
7.3.1.3.5 Recreational Management Measures
7.3.1.3.6 Atlantic Halibut Minimum Size
7.3.1.3.7 Prohibition on the Retention of Atlantic Wolffish
7.3.1.3.8 Implementation of Additional Sectors/Modifications to Existing Sectors
7.3.1.3.9 Accountability Measures
7.3.1.3.9.1 Common Pool Vessel Accountability Measures
7.3.1.3.9.2 Recreational Fishery Accountability Measures
7.3.1.3.9.3 Multispecies Sector Accountability Measures
7.3.2 Protected Species Impacts of Alternatives to the Proposed Action
7.3.2.1
Updates to Status Determination Criteria and Formal Rebuilding Programs
7.3.2.2
Fishery Program Administration Measures
7.3.2.2.1 Annual Catch Limits
7.3.2.2.2 Addition of Atlantic Wolffish to the Management Unit
7.3.2.2.3 Sector Administration Provisions
7.3.2.2.4 Reporting Requirements
7.3.2.2.5 Allocation of Groundfish to the Commercial and Recreational Groundfish Fisheries
7.3.2.2.6 Changes to the DAS Transfer and DAS Leasing Programs
7.3.2.2.7 Special Management Programs
7.3.2.2.7.1 Incidental Catch TACs
7.3.2.2.7.2 Closed Area I Hook Gear Haddock SAP Revisions
7.3.2.2.7.3 Eastern U.S./Canada Haddock SAP Area
7.3.2.2.7.4 Closed Area II Yellowtail Flounder SAP
7.3.2.2.7.5 SNE/MA Winter Flounder SAP
7.3.2.2.7.6 Category B DAS Revisions
7.3.2.2.8 Periodic Adjustment Process
7.3.2.2.9 Simultaneous Possession of a Limited Access Multispecies and Scallop Permit
7.3.2.2.10 Catch History
7.3.2.3
Measures to Meet Mortality Objectives
7.3.2.3.1 No-Action, Options 2A, and 4
7.3.2.3.2 SNE/MA Small Mesh Fisheries Gear Requirement
7.3.2.3.3 GOM Haddock Sink Gillnet Pilot Program
7.3.2.3.4 Haddock Minimum Size
7.3.2.3.5 Recreational Management Measures
7.3.2.3.6 Atlantic Halibut Minimum Size
7.3.2.3.7 Prohibition on the Retention of Atlantic Wolffish
7.3.2.3.8 Implementation of Additional Sectors/Modifications to Existing Sectors
7.3.2.3.9 Accountability Measures
7.3.2.3.9.1 Common Pool Vessel Accountability Measures
7.3.2.3.9.2 Recreational Fishery Accountability Measures
7.3.2.3.9.3 Multispecies Sector Accountability Measures
7.4
Essential Fish Habitat Impacts of the Alternatives
7.4.1 Essential Fish Habitat Impacts of the Proposed Action
7.4.1.1
Updates to Status Determination Criteria and Formal Rebuilding Programs
7.4.1.1.1 Revised Status Determination Criteria
7.4.1.1.2 ABC Control Rules
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

593
594
594
594
595
595
595
596
596
596
596
596
596
597
597
597
598
598
599
599
599
599
599
599
600
600
600
601
601
601
602
602
602
602
602
602
603
603
603
604
604
604
604
604
604
605
605
605
605
605
605
606
606
606
606

Contents
Table of Contents
7.4.1.1.3 Revised Mortality Targets for Formal Rebuilding Programs
7.4.1.2
Fishery Program Administration
7.4.1.2.1 Annual Catch Limits
7.4.1.2.2 Addition of Atlantic Wolffish to the Management Unit
7.4.1.2.3 Sector administration provisions
7.4.1.2.4 Reporting Requirements
7.4.1.2.5 Allocation of Groundfish to the Commercial and Recreational Groundfish Fisheries
7.4.1.2.6 Changes to the DAS Transfer and DAS Leasing Programs
7.4.1.2.7 Special Management Programs
7.4.1.2.7.1 Incidental Catch TACs
7.4.1.2.7.2 Closed Area I Hook Gear Haddock SAP Revisions
7.4.1.2.7.3 Eastern U.S./Canada Haddock SAP
7.4.1.2.7.4 Closed Area II Yellowtail Flounder SAP
7.4.1.2.7.5 SNE/MA Winter Flounder SAP
7.4.1.2.7.6 Category B DAS Program
7.4.1.2.8 Periodic Adjustment Process
7.4.1.2.9 Simultaneous Possession of a Limited Access Multispecies and Scallop Permit
7.4.1.2.10 Catch History
7.4.1.3
Measures to Meet Mortality Objectives
7.4.1.3.1 Commercial Fishery Measures
7.4.1.3.1.1 24 hour clock, Restricted Gear Areas
7.4.1.3.1.2 SNE/MA Small Mesh Fisheries Gear Requirement
7.4.1.3.1.3 GOM Haddock Sink Gillnet Pilot Program
7.4.1.3.2 Recreational Management Measures
7.4.1.3.3 Atlantic Halibut Minimum Size
7.4.1.3.4 Prohibition on Retention of Atlantic Wolffish
7.4.1.3.5 Implementation of Additional Sectors/Modifications to Existing Sectors
7.4.1.3.6 Accountability Measures
7.4.1.3.6.1 Commercial Groundfish Fishing Vessel Accountability Measures
7.4.1.3.6.2 Recreational Fishing Vessel Ams
7.4.1.4
Summary of Essential Fish Habitat Impacts of the Proposed Action
7.4.2 Essential Fish Habitat Impacts of Alternatives to the Proposed Action
7.4.2.1
No Action Alternative
7.4.2.2
Updates to Status Determination Criteria and Formal Rebuilding Programs
7.4.2.2.1 Revised Status Determination Criteria
7.4.2.2.2 ABC Control Rules
7.4.2.2.3 Revised Mortality Targets for Formal Rebuilding Programs
7.4.2.3
Fishery Program Administration
7.4.2.3.1 Annual Catch Limits
7.4.2.3.2 Addition of Atlantic Wolffish to the Management Unit
7.4.2.3.3 Sector administration provisions
7.4.2.3.4 Reporting Requirements
7.4.2.3.5 Allocation of Groundfish to the Commercial and Recreational Groundfish Fisheries
7.4.2.3.6 Changes to the DAS Transfer and DAS Leasing Programs
7.4.2.3.7 Special Management Programs
7.4.2.3.7.1 Incidental Catch TACs
7.4.2.3.7.2 Closed Area I Hook Gear Haddock SAP Revisions
7.4.2.3.7.3 Eastern U.S./Canada Haddock SAP
7.4.2.3.7.4 Closed Area II Yellowtail Flounder SAP
7.4.2.3.7.5 SNE/MA Winter Flounder SAP
7.4.2.3.7.6 Category B DAS Program
7.4.2.3.8 Periodic Adjustment Process
7.4.2.3.9 Simultaneous Possession of a Limited Access Multispecies and Scallop Permit
7.4.2.3.10 Catch History
7.4.2.4
Measures to Meet Mortality Objectives
7.4.2.4.1 Commercial Fishery Measures
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

606
607
607
607
607
608
609
609
610
610
610
610
611
611
611
612
612
612
612
612
612
613
613
613
613
613
614
614
614
615
615
618
618
619
619
619
619
620
620
620
620
621
621
621
622
622
622
622
622
623
623
623
623
623
624
624

Contents
Table of Contents
7.4.2.4.1.1 Differential DAS and Trip Limits (Option 2A)
7.4.2.4.1.2 DAS Reduction and restricted gear areas
7.4.2.4.1.3 SNE/MA Small Mesh Fisheries Gear Requirement
7.4.2.4.1.4 GOM Haddock Sink Gillnet Pilot Program
7.4.2.4.2 Recreational Management Measures
7.4.2.4.3 Atlantic Halibut Minimum Size
7.4.2.4.4 Prohibition on Retention of Atlantic Wolffish
7.4.2.4.5 Implementation of Additional Sectors/Modifications to Existing Sectors
7.5
Economic Impacts
7.5.1 Economic Impacts of the Proposed Action
7.5.1.1
Updates to Status Determination Criteria and Formal Rebuilding Programs
7.5.1.1.1 Revised Status Determination Criteria
7.5.1.1.2 ABC Control Rules
7.5.1.1.3 Revised Mortality Targets for Formal Rebuilding Programs
7.5.1.2
Fishery Program Administration
7.5.1.2.1 Annual Catch Limits
7.5.1.2.2 Addition of Atlantic Wolffish to the Management Unit
7.5.1.2.3 Sector Administration Provisions
7.5.1.2.3.1 Sector Formation, Operations Plans, and Annual Reports
7.5.1.2.3.2 Allocation of Resources
7.5.1.2.3.2.6 PSC Shares, ACE Allocations and Potential Value by Vessel Length
7.5.1.2.3.3 Other PSC Alternative Issues
7.5.1.2.3.4 Monitoring and Enforcement
7.5.1.2.3.5 Transfer of ACE
7.5.1.2.3.6 Sector Participation in Special Management Programs
7.5.1.2.4 Reporting Requirements
7.5.1.2.5 Allocation of Groundfish to the Commercial and Recreational Groundfish Fisheries
7.5.1.2.6 Changes to the DAS Transfer and DAS Leasing Programs
7.5.1.2.7 Special Management Programs
7.5.1.2.7.1 Closed Area I Hook Gear Haddock SAP Revisions
7.5.1.2.7.2 Eastern U.S./Canada Haddock SAP
7.5.1.2.7.3 Closed Area II Yellowtail Flounder SAP Revisions
7.5.1.2.7.4 SNE/MA Winter Flounder SAP
7.5.1.2.7.5 Category B DAS (Regular) Program
7.5.1.2.8 Periodic Adjustment Process
7.5.1.2.9 Simultaneous Possession of a Limited Access Multispecies and Scallop Permit
7.5.1.2.10 Catch History
7.5.1.3
Measures to Meet Mortality Objectives
7.5.1.3.1 Commercial Fishery Management Measures
7.5.1.3.1.1 Economic Impacts of the Proposed Action: Alternative 3a: Differential DAS
7.5.1.3.1.2 Analysis of Vessel Break-Even DAS in New England Groundfish
7.5.1.3.1.3 Comparison of Economic Impacts of Effort Control Options
7.5.1.3.1.4 GOM Haddock Sink Gillnet Pilot Program
7.5.1.3.1.5 Haddock Minimum Size
7.5.1.3.2 Recreational Management Measures
7.5.1.3.2.1 Provisions for Landing Fillets
7.5.1.3.2.2 Removal of the Limit on Hooks
7.5.1.3.2.3 Measures to Reduce Mortality
7.5.1.3.3 Atlantic Halibut Minimum Size
7.5.1.3.4 Prohibition on Retention of Atlantic Wolffish
7.5.1.3.5 Implementation of Additional Sectors/Modifications to Existing Sectors
7.5.1.3.6 Accountability Measures
7.5.1.3.6.1 Common Pool Accountability Measures Alternative 2 – Differential DAS
7.5.1.3.6.2 Common Pool Accountability Measure Alternative 1 – Hard TAC
7.5.1.3.6.3 Recreational Fishery Accountability Measures
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

624
624
624
625
625
625
625
626
626
626
626
626
627
627
628
628
628
629
629
630
633
678
679
681
682
682
683
683
684
684
685
685
685
686
686
686
690
690
690
691
696
702
704
705
705
705
706
706
707
707
708
709
710
711
713

Contents
Table of Contents
7.5.2 Economic Impacts of Alternatives to the Proposed Action
7.5.2.1
Updates to Status Determination Criteria and Formal Rebuilding Programs
7.5.2.1.1 Revised Status Determination Criteria
7.5.2.1.2 ABC Control Rules
7.5.2.1.3 Revised Mortality Targets for Formal Rebuilding Programs
7.5.2.2
Fishery Program Administration
7.5.2.2.1 Annual Catch Limits
7.5.2.2.2 Addition of Atlantic Wolffish to the Management Unit
7.5.2.2.3 Sector Administration Provisions
7.5.2.2.3.1 Sector Formation, Operations Plans, and Annual Reports
7.5.2.2.3.2 Allocation of Resources
7.5.2.2.3.3 Monitoring and Enforcement
7.5.2.2.3.4 Transfer of ACE
7.5.2.2.3.5 Sector Participation in Special Management Programs
7.5.2.2.4 Reporting Requirements
7.5.2.2.5 Allocation of Groundfish to the Commercial and Recreational Groundfish Fisheries
7.5.2.2.6 Changes to the DAS Transfer and DAS Leasing Programs
7.5.2.2.7 Special Management Programs
7.5.2.2.7.1 Closed Area I Hook Gear Haddock SAP Revisions
7.5.2.2.7.2 Eastern U.S./Canada Haddock SAP
7.5.2.2.7.3 Closed Area II Yellowtail Flounder SAP Revisions
7.5.2.2.7.4 SNE/MA Winter Flounder SAP
7.5.2.2.7.5 Category B DAS (Regular) Program
7.5.2.2.8 Periodic Adjustment Process
7.5.2.2.9 Simultaneous Possession of a Limited Access Multispecies and Scallop Permit
7.5.2.2.10 Catch History
7.5.2.3
Measures to Meet Mortality Objectives
7.5.2.3.1 Commercial Fishery Management Measures
7.5.2.3.1.1 Economic Impacts of No Action
7.5.2.3.1.2 Economic Impacts of Alternative 2a: Differential DAS
7.5.2.3.1.3 Economic Impacts of Alternative 4: DAS Reduction and Restricted Gear Areas
7.5.2.3.1.4 Analysis of Vessel Break-Even DAS in New England Groundfish
7.5.2.3.1.5 GOM Haddock Sink Gillnet Pilot Program
7.5.2.3.1.6 Haddock Minimum Size
7.5.2.3.2 Recreational Management Measures
7.5.2.3.2.1 Provisions for Landing Fillets
7.5.2.3.2.2 Removal of the Limit on Hooks
7.5.2.3.2.3 Measures to Reduce Mortality
7.5.2.3.3 Atlantic Halibut Minimum Size
7.5.2.3.4 Prohibition on Retention of Atlantic Wolffish
7.5.2.3.5 Implementation of Additional Sectors/Modifications to Existing Sectors
7.5.2.3.6 Accountability Measures
7.5.2.3.6.1 Common Pool Accountability Measure Alternative 1 – Hard TAC
7.5.2.3.6.2 Common Pool Accountability Measures Alternative 2 – Differential DAS
7.5.2.3.6.3 Recreational Fishery Accountability Measures
7.6
Social Impacts
7.6.1 Scale of Assessment – Fishing Communities
7.6.2 Communities of Interest
7.6.3 Social Impact Analysis Factors
7.6.3.1
Regulatory Discarding
7.6.3.2
Safety
7.6.3.3
Disruption in Daily Living
7.6.3.4
Changes in Occupational Opportunities and Community Infrastructure
7.6.3.5
Formation of Attitudes
7.6.4 General Impacts of Effort Control Measures under Consideration
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

713
713
713
713
714
714
714
714
714
714
715
719
719
720
720
720
720
721
721
721
721
721
721
721
722
722
722
722
722
729
733
738
739
740
740
740
741
741
741
741
742
742
742
744
745
746
747
749
750
750
752
754
756
759
761

Contents
Table of Contents
7.6.4.1
DAS Modifications
7.6.4.2
Trip Limits
7.6.4.3
Gear Restrictions
7.6.4.4
Special Access Programs
7.6.4.5
Category B (regular) DAS Program
7.6.5 Social Impacts of the Proposed t Action
7.6.5.1
Updates to Status Determination Criteria and Formal Rebuilding Programs
7.6.5.2
Impacts of Fishery Program Administration
7.6.5.2.1 Annual Catch Limits
7.6.5.2.2 Addition of Atlantic Wolffish to the Management Unit
7.6.5.2.3 Sector Administration Provisions
7.6.5.2.4 Reporting Requirements
7.6.5.2.5 Allocation of Groundfish to the Commercial and Recreational Groundfish Fisheries
7.6.5.2.6 Changes to the DAS Leasing and Transfer Programs
7.6.5.2.7 Special Management Programs
7.6.5.3
Impacts of Management Alternatives to Meet Mortality Objectives
7.6.5.3.1 Commercial Fishery Management Measures
7.6.5.3.2 Recreational Fishery Management Measures
7.6.5.3.3 Atlantic Halibut Minimum Size
7.6.5.3.4 Prohibition of Retention of Atlantic Wolffish
7.6.5.3.5 Implementation of Additional Sectors/Modifications to Existing Sectors
7.6.5.3.6 Accountability Measures
7.6.6 Summary and Conclusions
7.6.7 Social Impacts Analysis of Alternatives to the Proposed Action
7.6.7.1
Updates to Status Determination Criteria and Formal Rebuilding Programs
7.6.7.2
Impacts of Fishery Program Administration
7.6.7.2.1 Annual Catch Limits
7.6.7.2.2 Addition of Atlantic Wolffish to the Management Unit
7.6.7.2.3 Sector Administration Provisions
7.6.7.2.4 Reporting Requirements
7.6.7.2.5 Allocation of Groundfish to the Commercial and Recreational Groundfish Fisheries
7.6.7.2.6 Changes to the DAS Leasing and Transfer Programs
7.6.7.2.7 Special Management Programs
7.6.7.3
Impacts of Management Alternatives to Meet Mortality Objectives
7.6.7.3.1 Commercial Fishery Management Measures
7.6.7.3.2 Recreational Fishery Management Measures
7.6.7.3.3 Atlantic Halibut Minimum Size
7.6.7.3.4 Prohibition of Retention of Atlantic Wolffish
7.6.7.3.5 Implementation of Additional Sectors/Modifications to Existing Sectors
7.6.7.3.6 Accountability Measures
7.7
Impacts on Other Fisheries
7.7.1 Overview
7.7.2 Summer Flounder
7.7.3 Scup
7.7.4 Black Sea Bass
7.7.5 Squid/Mackerel/Butterfish
7.7.6 Monkfish
7.7.7 Skates
7.7.8 Other Fisheries
7.7.8.1
Spiny Dogfish
7.7.8.2
Small-mesh Multispecies
7.7.8.3
American Lobster
7.7.8.4
Atlantic Sea Scallops
7.7.8.5
Atlantic Herring

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

761
763
763
764
765
765
765
766
766
766
766
767
767
767
768
768
768
769
770
770
770
772
773
774
774
774
774
774
775
775
775
775
776
776
776
776
777
777
777
777
778
778
781
783
784
785
786
791
794
794
794
794
796
798

Contents
Table of Contents
7.8
Cumulative Effects Analysis
7.8.1 Introduction
7.8.2 Past, Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions
7.8.3 Baseline Conditions for Resources and Human Communities
7.8.4 Summary Effects of Amendment 16 Actions
7.8.5 Cumulative Effects Summary

799
799
801
803
806
807

8.0

DATA AND RESEARCH NEEDS

831

9.0

APPLICABLE LAW

835

9.1
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
9.1.1 Consistency with National Standards
9.1.2 Other M-SFCMA requirements
9.1.3 EFH Assessment
9.1.3.1
Description of Action
9.1.3.2
Potential Adverse Impacts of the Action on EFH
9.1.3.3
Proposed Measures to Avoid, Minimize, or Mitigate Adverse Impacts of This Action
9.1.3.4
Conclusions
9.1.4 Skate Baseline Review

835
835
840
844
844
845
845
845
848

9.2
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
9.2.1 Scoping Summary
9.2.2 Areas of Controversy
9.2.3 Document Distribution
9.2.4 List of Preparers
9.2.5 Agencies Consulted
9.2.6 Opportunity for Public Comment

849
849
850
850
851
852
852

9.3

Endangered Species Act

856

9.4

Marine Mammal Protection Act

856

9.5

Coastal Zone Management Act

856

9.6

Administrative Procedure Act

857

9.7
Data Quality Act
9.7.1 Utility of Information Product
9.7.2 Integrity of Information Product
9.7.3 Objectivity of Information Product

857
857
857
858

9.8

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

859

9.9

Executive Order 13158 (Marine Protected Areas)

859

9.10

Paperwork Reduction Act

859

9.11
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
9.11.1
Economic Impacts on Regulated Small Entities
9.11.2
Commercial Fishing Vessels
9.11.2.1
Open Access Permits (HB, I, J, K)
9.11.2.2
Limited Access Permits (HA, A, C, D, E, F)
9.11.2.3
Commercial Fishing Impacts of Non-Selected Effort Control Alternatives
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

860
860
860
861
861
866

Contents
Table of Contents
9.11.3

Party/Charter Impacts

866

9.12

Executive Order 12866

867

9.13

E.O. 12898 - Environmental Justice

869

10.0

REFERENCES

871

10.1

Literature Cited

871

10.2

Glossary

883

10.3

List of Public Meetings

899

10.4

Index

902

Appendix I
Appendix II
Appendix III
Appendix IV
Appendix V
Appendix VI

Summary of Past, Present, or Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions
Closed Area Model Description and Performance
An analysis of catch rates of groundfish species from a bait selectivity experiment in
Closed Area I
Status of the ESA-listed Species likely to be Affected by the Multispecies FMP Fisheries
Response to Comments
Public Comments

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

Contents
Tables

2.2

Tables

TABLE 1 - STOCK STATUS SUMMARY AND TARGETED REBUILDING DATES (BASED ON GARM III, DPWG). BOLD-FACED
TARGET DATES ARE ADOPTED IN THIS ACTION. ......................................................................................................... 7
TABLE 2 – SUMMARY OF REBUILDING REDUCTIONS NEEDED TO ACHIEVE DESIRED FISHING MORTALITY.......................... 8
TABLE 3 – EXPECTED DATES FOR ACHIEVING REBUILDING TARGETS SHOULD MORTALITY TARGETS BE ACHIEVED ........ 12
TABLE 4 – OPTION 3A CHANGES IN EXPLOITATION (NEEDED DIFFERENCE FOR POLLOCK REFLECTS IMPACTS OF CHANGES
TO THE CATEGORY B REGULAR DAS PROGRAM).................................................................................................... 13
TABLE 5 - CHANGE IN TOTAL REVENUE (BY HOMEPORT STATE) ..................................................................................... 15
TABLE 6 - CHANGE IN GROUNDFISH TRIP REVENUE........................................................................................................ 15
TABLE 7 – COMPARISON OF VESSEL LEVEL IMPACTS OF GROSS REVENUES FOR EFFORT CONTROL OPTIONS .................... 15
TABLE 8 – SUMMARY OF CHANGES IN EXPLOITATION EXPECTED FROM EFFORT CONTROL OPTIONS ................................ 19
TABLE 9 - CHANGE IN TOTAL REVENUE (BY HOMEPORT STATE) ..................................................................................... 20
TABLE 10 - CHANGE IN GROUNDFISH TRIP REVENUE...................................................................................................... 20
TABLE 11 – GEAR REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE EXISTING MANAGEMENT SYSTEM ........................................................... 74
TABLE 12 – PROPOSED ACTION STATUS DETERMINATION CRITERIA ................................................................................ 76
TABLE 13 - NUMERICAL ESTIMATES OF REVISED STATUS DETERMINATION CRITERIA FROM GARM III ASSESSMENT
MEETINGS AND THE DATA POOR WORKING GROUP ................................................................................................ 77
TABLE 14 – OPTION 2 – DRAFT AMENDMENT 16 REVISED REBUILDING FISHING MORTALITY RATES BASED ON CURRENT
STOCK STATUS. ....................................................................................................................................................... 83
TABLE 15 – FINAL AMENDMENT 16 REVISED REBUILDING FISHING MORTALITY RATES BASED ON CURRENT STOCK
STATUS AND REVISED ABC CONTROL RULES.......................................................................................................... 84
TABLE 16 – SUMMARY OF REBUILDING REDUCTIONS NEEDED TO ACHIEVE DESIRED FISHING MORTALITY...................... 86
TABLE 17 – OVERVIEW OF DEFINITIONS USED IN ACL PROCESS...................................................................................... 88
TABLE 18 – ACLS AND SUB-COMPONENTS FOR GROUNDFISH STOCKS. SCALLOP VALUES TO BE DETERMINED DURING
BIENNIAL ADJUSTMENT PROCESS AND OTHER VALUES FOR THOSE STOCKS WILL BE ADJUSTED ACCORDINGLY. ..... 93
TABLE 19 – DISCARD ESTIMATES WILL BE APPLIED TO THE SPECIES/GEAR COMBINATIONS SHOW................................. 125
TABLE 21 – PROPOSED TIME PERIODS FOR CALCULATING THE RECREATIONAL AND COMMERCIAL SHARE OF THE
GROUNDFISH ACL AND PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE OF RECREATIONAL ALLOCATION THAT RESULTS. ..................... 126
TABLE 22 – PROPOSED INCIDENTAL CATCH TACS FOR MAJOR STOCKS OF CONCERN (MT). TACS ARE FOR THE FISHING
YEAR. TACS SHOWN ARE METRIC TONS, LIVE WEIGHT. NOTE: GB COD AND GB YELLOWTAIL FLOUNDER TAC IS
DETERMINED ANNUALLY AND CANNOT BE ESTIMATED IN ADVANCE. VALUES ARE DEPENDENT ON ACLS, WHICH
HAVE NOT YET BEEN DETERMINED........................................................................................................................ 128
TABLE 23 - PROPOSED ALLOCATION OF INCIDENTAL CATCH TACS FOR MAJOR STOCKS OF CONCERN TO CATEGORY B 128
TABLE 24 – IMPACTS OF RECREATIONAL/COMMERCIAL ALLOCATION OPTIONS ON MORTALITY REDUCTIONS NEEDED FOR
THE RECREATIONAL COMPONENTS OF THE GROUNDFISH FISHERY......................................................................... 139
TABLE 25 – DRAFT AMENDMENT DOCUMENT STOCKS AND AREAS FOR DIFFERENTIAL DAS AM ADJUSTMENT ............ 150
TABLE 26 – PROPOSED STOCK/AREA COMBINATIONS FOR APPLICATION OF DIFFERENTIAL DAS AM............................ 154
TABLE 27 – DIFFERENTIAL DAS AM FACTOR ............................................................................................................... 154
TABLE 28 – INITIAL APPORTIONMENT OF COMMON POOL TAC TO TRIMESTERS ............................................................ 156
TABLE 29 – GEARS PROHIBITED IN SPECIFIC AREAS WHEN A TAC/ACL IS CAUGHT...................................................... 158
TABLE 30 – COMPARISON OF STATISTICAL AREAS CONTRIBUTING 90 PERCENT OF LANDINGS USING DATA FROM DRAFT
AMENDMENT 16 AND CY 2006-2008 LANDINGS. DIFFERENCES ARE UNDERLINED............................................... 159
TABLE 31 – AMENDMENT 13 STATUS DETERMINATION CRITERIA .................................................................................. 172
TABLE 32 – AMENDMENT 13 NUMERICAL ESTIMATES OF STATUS DETERMINATION CRITERIA. ...................................... 173
TABLE 33 – AMENDMENT 13 MSY CONTROL RULES. TARGET FISHING MORTALITY RATES ARE 75 PERCENT OF THE
CONTROL RULE MORTALITY.................................................................................................................................. 174
TABLE 34 – REBUILDING FISHING MORTALITY RATES AS ADOPTED BY AMENDMENT 13 AND FW 42............................ 176
TABLE 35 – PROPOSED TIME PERIODS FOR CALCULATING THE RECREATIONAL AND COMMERCIAL SHARE OF THE
GROUNDFISH ACL AND PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE OF RECREATIONAL ALLOCATION THAT RESULTS. NOTE: NOT YET
ADJUSTED FOR STATE WATERS CATCHES NOT SUBJECT TO THE MANAGEMENT PLAN. ........................................... 195
TABLE 36 – NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE GENERAL GEAR REQUIREMENTS ........................................................................ 201
TABLE 37 – MODIFIED MEASURES FOR ALTERNATIVE 2A ............................................................................................. 207
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

Contents
Tables
TABLE 38 – IMPACTS OF RECREATIONAL/COMMERCIAL ALLOCATION OPTIONS ON MORTALITY REDUCTIONS NEEDED FOR
THE RECREATIONAL AND COMMERCIAL COMPONENTS OF THE GROUNDFISH FISHERY........................................... 214
TABLE 39 - GULF OF MAINE BENTHIC ASSEMBLAGES AS IDENTIFIED BY WATLING (1998) ........................................... 230
TABLE 40 - COMPARISON OF DEMERSAL FISH ASSEMBLAGES OF GEORGES BANK AND THE GULF OF MAINE ................ 232
TABLE 41 - SEDIMENTARY PROVINCES AND ASSOCIATED BENTHIC LANDSCAPES OF GEORGES BANK ........................... 234
TABLE 42 - MID-ATLANTIC HABITAT TYPES.................................................................................................................. 244
TABLE 43 - MAJOR RECURRENT DEMERSAL FINFISH ASSEMBLAGES OF THE MID-ATLANTIC BIGHT DURING SPRING AND
FALL. .................................................................................................................................................................... 245
TABLE 44 - MID-ATLANTIC REEF TYPES, LOCATION, AND REPRESENTATIVE FLORA AND FAUNA .................................. 246
TABLE 45 - FAUNAL ZONES OF THE CONTINENTAL SLOPE OF GEORGES BANK AND SOUTHERN NEW ENGLAND............ 253
TABLE 46 – GEORGES BANK HABITAT TYPES ............................................................................................................... 253
TABLE 47 - EFH DESCRIPTIONS FOR ALL BENTHIC LIFE STAGES OF FEDERALLY-MANAGED SPECIES IN THE U.S.
NORTHEAST SHELF ECOSYSTEM. SPECIES WITH EFH VULNERABLE TO BOTTOM TENDING GEAR ARE SHADED (SEE
STEVENSON ET AL. 2004). .................................................................................................................................... 254
TABLE 48 - SUMMARY OF GROUNDFISH STOCK STATUS IN 2007.................................................................................... 276
TABLE 49 - SPECIES PROTECTED UNDER THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT AND MARINE MAMMAL PROTECTION ACT
THAT MAY OCCUR IN THE OPERATIONS AREA FOR THE GROUNDFISH FISHERY....................................................... 297
TABLE 50 - DESCRIPTIONS OF THE TIER 2 FISHERY CLASSIFICATION CATEGORIES ....................................................... 303
TABLE 51 - MARINE MAMMAL IMPACTS BASED ON GROUND-FISHING GEAR AND NORTHEAST MULTISPECIES FISHING
AREAS (BASED ON 2010 LIST OF FISHERIES)......................................................................................................... 305
TABLE 52 – COMPARISON OF CATCH TO TTAC, 1996 – 2007. INSTANCES WHERE CATCH EXCEEDED TTAC ARE
UNDERLINED AND IN BOLD-FACE. ......................................................................................................................... 311
TABLE 53 – NUMBER OF GROUNDFISH PERMITS BY PERMIT CATEGORY, FY 2004 – FY 2007........................................ 315
TABLE 54 – MULTISPECIES LIMITED ACCESS A DAYS-AT-SEA USED BY MULTISPECIES PERMIT CATEGORY ............... 318
TABLE 55 – DAYS-AT-SEA USAGE BY VESSEL LENGTH CLASS, 2001-2006 ................................................................. 319
TABLE 56 – MULTISPECIES LIMITED ACCESS A DAYS-AT-SEA USED BY PRIMARY GEAR TYPE, FY 2001-FY 2006 ....... 320
TABLE 57 – MULTISPECIES LIMITED ACCESS A DAYS-AT-SEA USED BY HOME PORT STATE, FY 2001-FY 2006........... 322
TABLE 58 – TOTAL GROUNDFISH LANDINGS AND REVENUES, FY 2004 - FY 2007....................................................... 324
TABLE 59 - TOTAL NUMBER OF MULTISPECIES VESSELS LANDING GROUNDFISH BY PERMIT CATEGORY, FY 2004-FY 2007
............................................................................................................................................................................. 325
TABLE 60 - TOTAL LANDINGS (IN LBS.) OF MULTISPECIES VESSELS BY PERMIT CATEGORY, FY 2001-FY 2007.......... 326
TABLE 61 – GROUNDFISH LANDINGS OF MULTISPECIES VESSELS BY PERMIT CATEGORY, FY 2001-FY 2007 ................ 326
TABLE 62 – TOTAL REVENUES BY MULTISPECIES VESSELS BY PERMIT CATEGORY, FY 2001-FY 2007.......................... 327
TABLE 63 – GROUNDFISH REVENUES BY MULTISPECIES VESSELS BY PERMIT CATEGORY, FY 2001-FY 2007 ............... 327
TABLE 64 – AVERAGE REGULATED GROUNDFISH REVENUES PER PERMIT BY PERMIT TYPE, FY 2004-FY 2007............. 328
TABLE 65 – TOTAL LANDINGS (IN LBS.) BY MULTISPECIES VESSELS BY LENGTH CLASS, FY 2001-FY 2007 ............... 330
TABLE 66 – CONSTANT TOTAL REVENUES BY MULTISPECIES VESSELS BY LENGTH CLASS, FY 2001-FY 2007........... 330
TABLE 67 – GROUNDFISH LANDINGS (IN LBS.) BY MULTISPECIES VESSELS BY LENGTH CLASS, FY 2001-FY 2007 ..... 330
TABLE 68 – CONSTANT GROUNDFISH REVENUES BY MULTISPECIES VESSELS BY LENGTH CLASS, FY 2001-FY 2007. 330
TABLE 69 – TOTAL LANDINGS BY MULTISPECIES VESSELS BY GEAR USED, FY 2001-FY 2007 ................................... 332
TABLE 70 – TOTAL REVENUES BY MULTISPECIES VESSELS BY GEAR USED, FY 2001-FY 2007................................... 332
TABLE 71 – GROUNDFISH LANDINGS BY MULTISPECIES VESSELS BY GEAR USED, FY 2001-FY 2007......................... 333
TABLE 72 – GROUNDFISH REVENUES BY MULTISPECIES VESSELS BY GEAR USED, FY 2001-FY 2007......................... 333
TABLE 73 – TOTAL LANDINGS OF MULTISPECIES VESSELS BY HOME PORT STATE, FY 2001-FY 2007 ........................... 336
TABLE 74 – GROUNDFISH LANDINGS BY MULTISPECIES VESSELS BY HOME PORT STATE, FY 2001-FY 2007................. 336
TABLE 75 - TOTAL REVENUES BY MULTISPECIES VESSELS BY HOME PORT STATE, FY 2001-FY 2007 ........................... 337
TABLE 76 – GROUNDFISH REVENUES BY MULTISPECIES VESSELS BY HOME PORT STATE, FY 2001-FY 2007 ................ 337
TABLE 77 – TOTAL LANDINGS BY MULTISPECIES VESSELS BY LANDING STATE, FY 2001-FY 2007............................... 339
TABLE 78 – GROUNDFISH LANDINGS BY MULTISPECIES VESSELS BY LANDING STATE, FY 2001-FY 2007 .................... 340
TABLE 79 – TOTAL REVENUE BY MULTISPECIES VESSELS BY LANDING STATE, FY 2001-FY 2007 ................................ 341
TABLE 80 – GROUNDFISH REVENUES BY MULTISPECIES VESSELS BY LANDING STATE, FY 2001-FY 2007 .................... 342
TABLE 81 – NUMBER OF VESSELS LANDING GROUNDFISH BY PORT, FY 2004-FY 2007 ................................................ 343
TABLE 82 – TOTAL LANDINGS OF MULTISPECIES VESSELS BY LANDING PORT, FY 2001-FY 2007................................. 344
TABLE 83 – GROUNDFISH LANDINGS BY MULTISPECIES VESSELS BY LANDING PORT, FY 2001-FY 2007 ...................... 344
TABLE 84 – TOTAL REVENUES BY MULTISPECIES VESSELS BY LANDING PORT, FY 2001-FY 2007 ................................ 345
TABLE 85 – GROUNDFISH REVENUES BY MULTISPECIES VESSELS BY LANDING PORT, FY 2001-FY 2007...................... 345
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

Contents
Tables
TABLE 86 – VARIABLE COSTS ON OBSERVED TRIPS LANDING REGULATED GROUNDFISH (FY 2007 DATA INCOMPLETE).
DATA ARE AVERAGES. .......................................................................................................................................... 347
TABLE 87 – LANDINGS (LBS., LIVE WEIGHT) UNDER THE CATEGORY B (REGULAR) DAS PROGRAM, BY FISHING YEAR
AND QUARTER....................................................................................................................................................... 350
TABLE 88 – NOMINAL REVENUES, BY SPECIES, FOR LANDINGS UNDER THE CATEGORY B (REGULAR) DAS PROGRAM . 351
TABLE 89 - NUMBER OF FLIPPED AND UNFLIPPED B-REGULAR DAS PROGRAM TRIPS AND FLIPPING RATES ON
UNOBSERVED AND OBSERVED TRIPS IN FISHING YEARS 2006 AND 2007, BY QUARTER. ........................................ 352
TABLE 90 – RESULTS OF PEARSON CHI-SQUARE AND LIKELIHOOD RATIO TEST OF CAT B (REGULAR) DAS FLIPPING
BEHAVIOR ............................................................................................................................................................. 352
TABLE 91 – OBSERVED TRIPS USING A SEPARATOR PANEL, FY 2004- NOVEMBER, FY 2007. ROWS DO NOT ADD TO
COLUMN TOTAL BECAUSE INDIVIDUAL TRIPS MAY FISH IN MORE THAN ONE AREA................................................ 355
TABLE 92 – CATCHES (POUNDS, LIVE WEIGHT, KEPT AND DISCARDED) BY STATISTICAL AREA ON OBSERVED TOWS USING
A HADDOCK SEPARATOR TRAWL, FY 2004 – NOVEMBER, FY 2007. ONLY TOP TWENTY-FIVE SPECIES CAUGHT ARE
SHOWN.................................................................................................................................................................. 356
TABLE 93 - CATCHES (POUNDS, LIVE WEIGHT, KEPT AND DISCARDED) ON OBSERVED TOWS USING A HADDOCK
SEPARATOR TRAWL, FY 2004 – NOVEMBER, FY 2007. ONLY TOP TWENTY-FIVE SPECIES CAUGHT ARE SHOWN. . 357
TABLE 94 – OBSERVED RATIOS OF HADDOCK TO OTHER SPECIES ON TOWS USING A HADDOCK SEPARATOR TRAWL, FY
2004 – NOVEMBER, FY 2007................................................................................................................................ 357
TABLE 95 – AVERAGE CATCH PER TOW (LBS.) ON OBSERVED TRIPS USING A SEPARATOR TRAWL ................................. 357
TABLE 96 - GENERAL SUMMARY OF PARTICIPATION IN THE DAS LEASING PROGRAM DURING FISHING YEARS 20052007 ..................................................................................................................................................................... 358
TABLE 97 - NUMBER OF DAS LEASED AS A PROPORTION OF CATEGORY A DAS ALLOCATED AND USED BY FISHING
YEAR .................................................................................................................................................................... 359
TABLE 98 - NUMBER OF DAS LEASED FOR PARTIAL FY 2008 COMPARED TO THE SAME PERIOD FY 2007.................. 359
TABLE 99 - AVERAGE PRICE PER DAS LEASED DURING FISHING YEARS 2005-2007.................................................... 361
TABLE 100 - NUMBER OF DAS LEASED BY HOME PORT STATE DURING FISHING YEAR 2005...................................... 363
TABLE 101 - NUMBER OF DAS LEASED BY HOME PORT STATE DURING FISHING YEAR 2006...................................... 363
TABLE 102 - NUMBER OF DAS LEASED BY HOME PORT STATE DURING FISHING YEAR 2007...................................... 364
TABLE 103 - GENERAL SUMMARY OF PARTICIPATION IN THE DAS TRANSFER PROGRAM ............................................ 365
TABLE 104 - TOTAL NUMBER OF DAS TRANSFERRED BY HOME PORT STATE DURING FYS 2006 AND 2007 ............... 366
TABLE 105 - TOTAL NUMBER OF CATEGORY A DAS TRANSFERRED BY HOME PORT STATE DURING FYS 2006 AND 2007
............................................................................................................................................................................. 366
TABLE 106 - TOTAL NUMBER OF CATEGORY B REGULAR DAS TRANSFERRED BY HOME PORT STATE DURING FYS 2006
AND 2007.............................................................................................................................................................. 366
TABLE 107 - TOTAL NUMBER OF CATEGORY B RESERVE DAS TRANSFERRED BY HOME PORT STATE DURING FYS 2006
AND 2007.............................................................................................................................................................. 366
TABLE 108 - TOTAL NUMBER OF CATEGORY C DAS TRANSFERRED BY HOME PORT STATE DURING FYS 2006 AND 2007
............................................................................................................................................................................. 366
TABLE 109 - AVERAGE PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF TRANSFEROR AND TRANSFEREE VESSELS PARTICIPATING IN
THE DAS TRANSFER PROGRAM ............................................................................................................................ 367
TABLE 110 - NUMBER OF LIMITED ACCESS PERMITS GAINED AND LOST THROUGH THE DAS TRANSFER PROGRAM ... 368
TABLE 111 - NUMBER OF DAS LOST DUE TO THE CONSERVATION TAX IN THE DAS TRANSFER PROGRAM ................. 369
TABLE 112 – NUMBER OF PERMITS, GB COD ALLOCATION, AND GB COD LANDINGS (ACCORDING TO SECTOR ANNUAL
REPORT) FOR THE GB COD HOOK SECTOR............................................................................................................ 375
TABLE 113 – LANDINGS (POUNDS, LIVE WEIGHT) FOR GB COD HOOK SECTOR VESSELS .............................................. 376
TABLE 114 – REVENUES (NOMINAL DOLLARS) FOR PERMITS IN THE GB COD HOOK SECTOR VESSELS ........................ 378
TABLE 115 – LANDINGS (POUNDS, LIVE WEIGHT) BY PERMITS IN THE FIXED GEAR SECTOR IN FY 2007 ...................... 382
TABLE 116 – REVENUES (NOMINAL DOLLARS) FOR PERMITS IN THE FIXED GEAR SECTOR IN FY 2007 ......................... 383
TABLE 117 – PERCENT OF COD LANDED BY MONTH FOR PERMITS IN THE FIXED GEAR SECTOR IN FY 2007.................. 384
TABLE 118 – OBSERVED SINK GILLNET TRIPS ON GEORGES BANK FOR VESSELS THAT WERE IN THE FIXED GEAR SECTOR
IN FY 2007 ........................................................................................................................................................... 384
TABLE 119 – COD DISCARD REASONS FOR VESSELS IN THE FIXED GEAR SECTOR IN FY 2007....................................... 385
TABLE 120 - WINTER FLOUNDER CATCH (A+B1+B2) BY DISTANCE FROM SHORE (1,000’S OF FISH) ............................ 386
TABLE 121 - WINTER FLOUNDER CATCH DISPOSITION BY STOCK (1,000’S OF FISH) ...................................................... 387
TABLE 122 - WINTER FLOUNDER HARVEST BY STOCK AREA AND MODE (NUMBERS OF FISH) ........................................ 387
TABLE 123 - NUMBER OF MEASURED WINTER FLOUNDER BY YEAR............................................................................ 391
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

Contents
Tables
TABLE 124 - PROPORTION OF SNE/MA WINTER FLOUNDER HARVESTED BY WAVE .................................................... 393
TABLE 125 - PROPORTION OF GOM WINTER FLOUNDER HARVESTED BY WAVE .......................................................... 393
TABLE 126 - TOTAL HADDOCK CATCH BY DISTANCE FROM SHORE .............................................................................. 394
TABLE 127 - GOM HADDOCK CATCH DISPOSITION IN NUMBERS (1,000’S) (GARM III).............................................. 394
TABLE 128 - GULF OF MAINE HADDOCK HARVESTED BY MODE (NUMBERS OF FISH) ................................................... 395
TABLE 129 - NUMBER OF MEASURED GULF OF MAINE HADDOCK BY MODE AND CATCH DISPOSITION ....................... 398
TABLE 130 - MONTHLY PROPORTION OF GOM HADDOCK RETAINED BY MODE .......................................................... 401
TABLE 131 - POLLOCK CATCH IN NUMBERS BY DISTANCE FROM SHORE (1,000’S) ...................................................... 401
TABLE 132 - POLLOCK CATCH BY DISPOSITION IN NUMBERS (1,000’S) ........................................................................ 402
TABLE 133 - NUMBER OF HARVESTED POLLOCK BY MODE .......................................................................................... 402
TABLE 134 - TOTAL NUMBER OF MEASURED POLLOCK IN ALL FISHING MODES ............................................................. 407
TABLE 135 - PROPORTION OF POLLOCK HARVESTED BY WAVE AND MODE ................................................................. 408
TABLE 136 - NUMBER OF COD CAUGHT BY DISTANCE FROM SHORE (1,000’S)............................................................. 408
TABLE 137 - NUMBER OF COD BY CATCH DISPOSITION AND STOCK AREA ................................................................... 409
TABLE 138 - NUMBER OF HARVESTED COD BY STOCK AND MODE ............................................................................... 409
TABLE 139 - NUMBERS OF MEASURED ATLANTIC COD BY YEAR AND MODE ............................................................... 415
TABLE 140 - MONTHLY DISTRIBUTION OF GULF OF MAINE COD HARVEST BY MODE .................................................. 418
TABLE 141 - SUMMARY OF NORTHEAST REGION PARTY/CHARTER PERMITS HELD BY MULTISPECIES PART/CHARTER
PERMIT HOLDERS FY 2001-2007. ........................................................................................................................ 419
TABLE 142 - SUMMARY OF UNIQUE PARTY/CHARTER PERMIT COMBINATIONS HELD BY MULTISPECIES PARTY/CHARTER
PERMIT HOLDERS FY 2001-2007 .......................................................................................................................... 419
TABLE 143 - SUMMARY OF PARTY/CHARTER OPERATIONS .......................................................................................... 420
TABLE 144 - SUMMARY OF GROUNDFISH PARTY/CHARTER OPERATORS BY YEARS OF CONTINUOUS OPERATION ...... 421
TABLE 145 - SUMMARY OF ENTRY AND EXIT OF GROUNDFISH PARTY/CHARTER OPERATORS ..................................... 421
TABLE 146 - PASSENGER AND TRIP SHARES FOR THE 87 VESSELS ACTIVE IN EVERY YEAR ......................................... 422
TABLE 147 - SUMMARY OF OPERATING UNITS, TRIPS AND PASSENGERS BY TYPE OF OPERATION ................................ 423
TABLE 148 - SUMMARY OF SHARES OF OPERATING UNITS, GROUNDFISH TRIPS, AND PASSENGERS BY TYPE OF
OPERATION ........................................................................................................................................................... 423
TABLE 149 - SUMMARY OF NUMBER OF TRIPS BY TRIP DURATION AND NUMBER OF PASSENGERS PER TRIP ............... 425
TABLE 150 - SUMMARY OF NUMBER OF PASSENGERS BY TRIP DURATION AND NUMBER OF PASSENGERS PER TRIP .... 426
TABLE 151 - DEPENDENCE ON GROUNDFISH TRIPS ....................................................................................................... 427
TABLE 152 - STOCK AREA COMBINATIONS FISHED BY PARTY/CHARTER VESSELS BY FISHING YEAR .......................... 428
TABLE 153 - DEPENDENCE ON GROUNDFISH FOR VESSELS FISHING EXCLUSIVELY IN GOM OR SNEMA .................... 428
TABLE 154 - SUMMARY OF PARTY/CHARTER VESSELS GROUNDFISH TRIPS AND PASSENGERS BY FISHING YEAR AND
STOCK AREA ........................................................................................................................................................ 429
TABLE 155 – NUMBER OF FEDERALLY PERMITTED GROUNDFISH DEALERS (CALENDAR YEAR) ..................................... 430
TABLE 156 – NUMBER OF FEDERALLY PERMITTED GROUNDFISH DEALERS REPORTING BUYING GROUNDFISH ............... 431
TABLE 157 – SHARE OF GROUNDFISH PURCHASED BY FEDERALLY PERMITTED DEALERS INCLUDING AUCTIONS ........... 431
TABLE 158 – SHARE OF GROUNDFISH PURCHASED BY FEDERALLY PERMITTED DEALERS EXCLUDING AUCTIONS .......... 432
TABLE 159 – RELATIVE DEPENDENCE ON GROUNDFISH ................................................................................................. 432
TABLE 160 – NUMBER OF SEAFOOD PROCESSING ESTABLISHMENTS .............................................................................. 434
TABLE 161 – SEAFOOD PROCESSING MID-MARCH EMPLOYMENT (2001-2006).............................................................. 434
TABLE 162 – ESTIMATES OF 2002 DISCARDS FOR THE MAJOR TARGET SPECIES IN THE NORTHEAST GROUNDFISH FMP
FROM THE 2005 OCEANA REPORT ......................................................................................................................... 437
TABLE 163 – GB COD DISCARDS-AT-AGE (THOUSANDS OF FISH), 1989-2007 .............................................................. 438
TABLE 164 – GOM COD DISCARDS-AT-AGE (THOUSANDS OF FISH), 1999-2007 .......................................................... 439
TABLE 165 – GB HADDOCK DISCARDS-AT-AGE (THOUSANDS OF FISH), 1989-2007 ..................................................... 440
TABLE 166 – GOM HADDOCK DISCARDS-AT-AGE (THOUSANDS OF FISH), 1989-2007 ................................................. 441
TABLE 167 – GB YELLOWTAIL FLOUNDER DISCARDS-AT-AGE (THOUSANDS OF FISH), 1989-2007 .............................. 442
TABLE 168 – SNE/MA YELLOWTAIL FLOUNDER DISCARDS-AT-AGE (THOUSANDS OF FISH), 1989-2007..................... 444
TABLE 169 – CC/GOM YELLOWTAIL FLOUNDER DISCARDS-AT-AGE (THOUSANDS OF FISH), 1989-2007.................... 445
TABLE 170 – AMERICAN PLAICE DISCARDS-AT-AGE (THOUSANDS OF FISH), 1989-2007.............................................. 446
TABLE 171 – WITCH FLOUNDER DISCARDS-AT-AGE (THOUSANDS OF FISH), 1989-2007 .............................................. 448
TABLE 172 – GB WINTER FLOUNDER DISCARDS-AT-AGE (THOUSANDS OF FISH), 1989-2007 ...................................... 449
TABLE 173 – GOM WINTER FLOUNDER DISCARDS-AT-AGE (THOUSANDS OF FISH), 1989-2007 .................................. 451
TABLE 174 – SNE/MA WINTER FLOUNDER DISCARDS-AT-AGE (THOUSANDS OF FISH), 1989-2007............................. 452
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

Contents
Tables
TABLE 175 – COMPARISON OF NO ACTION AND PROPOSED STATUS DETERMINATION CRITERIA ................................. 486
TABLE 176 – EXPECTED DATES FOR ACHIEVING REBUILDING TARGETS SHOULD MORTALITY TARGETS BE ACHIEVED .. 488
TABLE 177 – DERIVATION OF 2008 ESTIMATED CATCH FOR REBUILDING PROJECTIONS. SEE TEXT FOR REVISIONS FOR
POLLOCK AND GB WINTER FLOUNDER.................................................................................................................. 499
TABLE 178 - SPAWNING PERIODS FOR GOM REGULATED GROUNDFISH. (SOURCE: ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT SOURCE
DOCUMENTS) ........................................................................................................................................................ 509
TABLE 179 - RATIO ESTIMATORS OF TOTAL WHITE HAKE: HADDOCK KEPT AND TOTAL COD: HADDOCK KEPT., ........... 515
TABLE 180 - POUNDS REPORTED KEPT ON 307 TRIPS IDENTIFIED AS CAII YELLOWTAIL FLOUNDER SAP TRIPS, FY 2004
............................................................................................................................................................................. 519
TABLE 181 – OPTION 3A CHANGES IN EXPLOITATION ................................................................................................... 525
TABLE 182 – SUMMARY OF GEARS PROPOSED FOR RESTRICTED GEAR AREAS ............................................................... 526
TABLE 183 – SUMMARY OF CHANGES IN EXPLOITATION EXPECTED FROM EFFORT CONTROL OPTIONS .......................... 528
TABLE 184 – ANOVA RESULTS FOR OBSERVED GILLNET SETS CATCHING HADDOCK ................................................... 534
TABLE 185 – NEEDED RECREATIONAL MORTALITY REDUCTIONS UNDER TWO ALLOCATION OPTIONS ........................... 538
TABLE 186 – GOM COD RECREATIONAL OPTION 3 BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS .................................................................... 539
TABLE 187 – EXAMPLES OF CONTINUED OVERFISHING IN SPITE OF CATCH LEVELS BELOW TTAC................................ 542
TABLE 188 – ESTIMATED DAS TO HARVEST FY 2009 COD TTAC FOR LARGE MESH OTTER TRAWLS BASED ON OBSERVED
CATCH RATES CY 2004 – CY 2007....................................................................................................................... 545
TABLE 189 – ESTIMATED DAS TO HARVEST FY 2009 HADDOCK TTAC FOR LARGE MESH OTTER TRAWLS BASED ON
OBSERVED CATCH RATES CY 2004 – CY 2007 ..................................................................................................... 546
TABLE 190 – ESTIMATED DAS TO HARVEST FY 2009 YELLOWTAIL FLOUNDER TTAC FOR LARGE MESH OTTER TRAWLS
BASED ON OBSERVED CATCH RATES CY 2004 – CY 2007..................................................................................... 547
TABLE 191 – ESTIMATED DAS TO HARVEST FY 2009 WITCH FLOUNDER TTAC FOR LARGE MESH OTTER TRAWLS BASED
ON OBSERVED CATCH RATES CY 2004 – CY 2007. WHILE WITCH FLOUNDER IS A SINGLE STOCK, IT IS CAUGHT ON
BOTH GB AND GOM SO THE TAC WAS DIVIDED BETWEEN THESE TWO AREAS AND THE DAYS NECESSARY TO
CATCH EACH PORTION ARE DIFFERENT. ................................................................................................................ 548
TABLE 192 – ESTIMATED DAS TO HARVEST FY 2009 POLLOCK TTAC FOR LARGE MESH OTTER TRAWLS BASED ON
OBSERVED CATCH RATES CY 2004 – CY 2007 ..................................................................................................... 549
TABLE 193 – ESTIMATED DAS TO HARVEST FY 2009 WINTER FLOUNDER TTAC FOR LARGE MESH OTTER TRAWLS
BASED ON OBSERVED CATCH RATES CY 2004 – CY 2007..................................................................................... 549
TABLE 194 – LANDINGS (2006-2008) FROM PROPOSED AREAS USED FOR DIFFERENTIAL DAS AM. ............................. 552
TABLE 195 – RATIO OF DISCARDS TO KEPT FOR STOCKS ALLOCATED TO SECTORS BASED ON GARM III ESTIMATES FOR
CY 2007 ............................................................................................................................................................... 564
TABLE 196 – NO ACTION CHANGES IN EXPLOITATION................................................................................................... 570
TABLE 197 – OPTION 2A CHANGES IN EXPLOITATION. VALUES SHOWN ARE FOR THREE VERSIONS OF OPTION 2A
CONSIDERED BY THE COUNCIL.............................................................................................................................. 572
TABLE 198 – OPTION 4 CHANGES IN EXPLOITATION ...................................................................................................... 575
TABLE 199 – GOM COD RECREATIONAL OPTION 1 BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS .................................................................... 578
TABLE 200 – GOM COD RECREATIONAL OPTION 2 BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS .................................................................... 578
TABLE 201 - GOM HADDOCK RECREATIONAL OPTION 1 BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS ............................................................ 579
TABLE 202 - GOM HADDOCK RECREATIONAL OPTION 2 BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS ............................................................ 579
TABLE 203 - GOM HADDOCK RECREATIONAL OPTION 3 BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS ............................................................ 580
TABLE 204 - BY REGION AND OVER ALL THREE GULF OF MAINE MANAGEMENT AREAS, THE NUMBER OF OBSERVED
HAULS, TAKES AND LANDINGS (OBS LANDINGS) AND THE RESULTING BYCATCH RATE (NUMBER OF HARBOR
PORPOISE TAKES/METRIC TON OF LANDINGS) OF HAULS THAT HAD ALL OF THE REQUIRED NUMBER OF PINGERS AND
WERE OBSERVED FROM 1 JANUARY 1999–31 MAY 2007. FROM PALKA AND ORPHANIDES (2008). ..................... 589
TABLE 205 – EXPECTED IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION RELATIVE TO THE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE ............... 615
TABLE 206 – COMPARISONS OF NO ACTION AND REVISED STATUS DETERMINATION CRITERIA (MSY) ...................... 627
TABLE 207 – TACS AND SPECIES VALUES USED TO EVALUATE PSC OPTIONS ............................................................... 632
TABLE 208 – ESTIMATED POTENTIAL SECTOR CONTRIBUTION SHARES BY VESSEL LENGTH GROUP ............................... 636
TABLE 209 – NO ACTION ALLOCATION OPTION: ACE (WEIGHT) AND VALUE OF ACE BY VESSEL LENGTH GROUP ....... 637
TABLE 210 – PROPOSED ACTION - OPTION 1 ALLOCATION: ACE (WEIGHT) AND VALUE OF ACE BY VESSEL LENGTH
GROUP .................................................................................................................................................................. 638
TABLE 211 – OPTION 2 ALLOCATION: ACE (WEIGHT) AND VALUE OF ACE BY VESSEL LENGTH GROUP ....................... 639
TABLE 212 – OPTION 3 ALLOCATION: ACE (WEIGHT) AND VALUE OF ACE BY VESSEL LENGTH GROUP ....................... 640
TABLE 213 – OPTION 4 ALLOCATION: ACE (WEIGHT) AND VALUE OF ACE BY VESSEL LENGTH GROUP ....................... 641
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

Contents
Tables
TABLE 214 - NO ACTION OPTION CONTRIBUTION SHARES BY HOME PORT STATE ................................................... 642
TABLE 215 - PROPOSED ACTION - OPTION 1 CONTRIBUTION SHARES BY HOME PORT STATE ................................... 642
TABLE 216 - OPTION 2 CONTRIBUTION SHARES BY HOME PORT STATE .................................................................... 643
TABLE 217 - OPTION 3 CONTRIBUTION SHARES BY HOME PORT STATE ................................................................... 643
TABLE 218 - OPTION 4 CONTRIBUTION SHARES BY HOME PORT STATE .................................................................... 644
TABLE 219 - NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE ACE ALLOCATIONS (METRIC TONS) BY HOME PORT STATE .......................... 645
TABLE 220 – PROPOSED ACTION - OPTION 1 ACE ALLOCATIONS (METRIC TONS) BY HOME PORT STATE ................... 646
TABLE 221 – OPTION 2 ACE ALLOCATIONS (METRIC TONS) BY HOME PORT STATE ..................................................... 647
TABLE 222 – OPTION 3 ACE ALLOCATIONS (METRIC TONS) BY HOME PORT STATE ..................................................... 648
TABLE 223 – OPTION 4 ACE ALLOCATIONS (METRIC TONS) BY HOME PORT STATE ..................................................... 649
TABLE 224 – NO ACTION ACE VALUE BY HOMEPORT STATE ........................................................................................ 650
TABLE 225 – PROPOSED ACTION - OPTION 1 ACE VALUE BY HOMEPORT STATE .......................................................... 651
TABLE 226 – OPTION 2 ACE VALUE BY HOMEPORT STATE............................................................................................ 652
TABLE 227 – OPTION 3 ACE VALUE BY HOMEPORT STATE............................................................................................ 653
TABLE 228 – OPTION 4 ACE VALUE BY HOMEPORT STATE............................................................................................ 654
TABLE 229 – NO ACTION ACE ALLOCATION (METRIC TONS) BY STOCK AREA HISTORY................................................ 655
TABLE 230 – PROPOSED ACTION - OPTION 1 ACE ALLOCATION (METRIC TONS) BY STOCK AREA HISTORY ................. 655
TABLE 231 – OPTION 2 ACE ALLOCATION (METRIC TONS) BY STOCK AREA HISTORY ................................................... 656
TABLE 232 – OPTION 3 ACE ALLOCATION (METRIC TONS) BY STOCK AREA HISTORY ................................................... 656
TABLE 233 – OPTION 4 ACE ALLOCATION (METRIC TONS) BY STOCK AREA HISTORY ................................................... 657
TABLE 234 – NO ACTION ESTIMATED ACE VALUE BY STOCK AREA HISTORY ............................................................... 658
TABLE 235 – PROPOSED ACTION - OPTION 1 ESTIMATED ACE VALUE BY STOCK AREA HISTORY ................................. 659
TABLE 236 – OPTION 2 ESTIMATED ACE VALUES BY STOCK AREA HISTORY ................................................................. 660
TABLE 237 – OPTION 3 ESTIMATED ACE VALUES BY STOCK AREA HISTORY ................................................................. 661
TABLE 238 – OPTION 4 ESTIMATED ACE VALUES BY STOCK AREA HISTORY ................................................................. 662
TABLE 239 – NO ACTION ESTIMATED ACE ALLOCATION BY SECTOR MEMBERSHIP ...................................................... 663
TABLE 240 – PROPOSED ACTION - OPTION 1 ESTIMATED ACE ALLOCATION BY SECTOR MEMBERSHIP ........................ 664
TABLE 241 – OPTION 2 ESTIMATED ACE ALLOCATIONS BY SECTOR MEMBERSHIP ........................................................ 665
TABLE 242 – OPTION 3 ESTIMATED ACE ALLOCATIONS BY SECTOR MEMBERSHIP ........................................................ 666
TABLE 243 – OPTION 4 ESTIMATED ACE ALLOCATIONS BY SECTOR MEMBERSHIP ........................................................ 667
TABLE 244 – NO ACTION ESTIMATED ACE VALUE BY SECTOR MEMBERSHIP ................................................................ 668
TABLE 245 – PROPOSED ACTION - OPTION 1 ESTIMATED ACE VALUE BY SECTOR MEMBERSHIP.................................. 669
TABLE 246 – OPTION 2 ESTIMATED ACE VALUES BY SECTOR MEMBERSHIP ................................................................. 670
TABLE 247 – OPTION 3 ESTIMATED ACE VALUES BY SECTOR MEMBERSHIP ................................................................. 671
TABLE 248 – OPTION 4 ESTIMATED ACE VALUES BY SECTOR MEMBERSHIP ................................................................. 672
TABLE 249 – RELATIVE CHANGE IN CUMULATIVE GB COD PSC UNDER DIFFERENT PSC OPTIONS. CHANGE COMPARES
ALLOCATION WITH OPTION 5 TO ALLOCATION WITHOUT OPTION 5. ..................................................................... 678
TABLE 250 –SECTOR MONITORING COST ESTIMATES FROM MCELDERRY AND TURRIS (2008B).................................... 681
TABLE 251 – LANDINGS AND REVENUES ON TRIPS CONSISTENT WITH SNE/MA WINTER FLOUNDER SAP REQUIREMENT
............................................................................................................................................................................. 686
TABLE 252 – NUMBER OF SCALLOP PERMITS THAT MATCH MULTISPECIES PERMITS OF A GIVEN HORSEPOWER GROUP . 688
TABLE 253 - NUMBER OF MULTISPECIES PERMITS THAT MATCH SCALLOP PERMITS OF A GIVEN HORSEPOWER GROUP .. 688
TABLE 254 – RESULTS OF SIMULATION MATCHING SCALLOP PERMITS TO MULTISPECIES PERMITS BASED ON PERMIT
BASELINE CHARACTERISTICS ................................................................................................................................ 689
TABLE 255 – SIMULATION MODEL RESULTS FOR CHANGES IN THE NUMBER OF MULTISPECIES PERMITS BY PRINCIPAL
PORT STATE .......................................................................................................................................................... 689
TABLE 256 - ALTERNATIVE 3A CHANGE IN GROUNDFISH TRIP AND TOTAL TRIP REVENUE BY HOME PORT STATE ..... 692
TABLE 257 - ALTERNATIVE 3A ESTIMATED IMPACT AND NUMBER OF AFFECTED VESSELS BY IMPACT CATEGORY ..... 692
TABLE 258 - ALTERNATIVE 3A ESTIMATED ADVERSE IMPACT AND AFFECTED VESSELS BY VESSEL LENGTH CLASS .. 693
TABLE 259 - ALTERNATIVE 3A ESTIMATED ADVERSE IMPACT AND AFFECTED VESSELS BY PRIMARY GEAR ............... 693
TABLE 260 - ALTERNATIVE 3A ESTIMATED ADVERSE REVENUE IMPACTS AND NUMBER OF AFFECTED VESSELS BY
HOME PORT STATE ............................................................................................................................................... 694
TABLE 261 - ALTERNATIVE 3A ESTIMATED IMPACTS AND NUMBER OF AFFECTED VESSELS BY DEPENDENCE ON
GROUNDFISH TRIP REVENUE ................................................................................................................................ 694
TABLE 262 - ALTERNATIVE 3A ESTIMATED ADVERSE REVENUE IMPACTS AND NUMBER OF AFFECTED VESSELS BY
GROSS SALES CATEGORY ..................................................................................................................................... 695
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

Contents
Tables
TABLE 263 - ALTERNATIVE 3A ESTIMATED ADVERSE REVENUE IMPACTS AND NUMBER OF AFFECTED VESSELS BY PORT
GROUPS ................................................................................................................................................................ 696
TABLE 264 - ESTIMATED BREAK-EVEN DAS NEEDED FOR FULL-TIME GROUNDFISH VESSELS BY LEVEL OF FIXED COST
AND GEAR/SIZE COMBINATIONS. ......................................................................................................................... 698
TABLE 265 - NUMBER OF LIMITED ACCESS PERMITS BY DEPENDENCE ON GROUNDFISH TRIP REVENUE FOR TOTAL
REVENUE BY GEAR/SIZE COMBINATIONS ............................................................................................................. 699
TABLE 266 - ESTIMATED TOTAL BREAK-EVEN DAS FOR LIMITED ACCESS GROUNDFISH VESSELS BY DEPENDENCE ON
GROUNDFISH AND GEAR/SIZE COMBINATIONS AND LEVEL OF FIXED COSTS ....................................................... 700
TABLE 267 - CHANGE IN TOTAL REVENUE .................................................................................................................... 702
TABLE 268 - CHANGE IN GROUNDFISH TRIP REVENUE.................................................................................................. 703
TABLE 269 – COMPARISON OF VESSEL LEVEL IMPACTS OF GROSS REVENUES FOR EFFORT CONTROL OPTIONS .............. 703
TABLE 270 – VESSEL LEVEL ADVERSE REVENUE IMPACTS BASED ON DEPENDENCE ON GROUNDFISH REVENUES .......... 704
TABLE 271 - STEPWISE ORDER FOR COBB-DOUGLAS MODEL ................................................................................... 717
TABLE 272 - STEPWISE ORDER FOR LINEAR MODEL .................................................................................................. 717
TABLE 273 - STEPWISE MARGINAL CONTRIBUTION TO R-SQUARE FOR COBB-DOUGLAS MODEL ............................ 718
TABLE 274 - STEPWISE MARGINAL CONTRIBUTION TO R-SQUARE FOR LINEAR MODEL ........................................... 718
TABLE 275 - CHANGE IN GROUNDFISH TRIP AND TOTAL TRIP REVENUE BY HOME PORT STATE.................................. 723
TABLE 276 - ESTIMATED IMPACT AND NUMBER OF AFFECTED VESSELS BY IMPACT CATEGORY.................................. 724
TABLE 277 - ESTIMATED ADVERSE IMPACT AND AFFECTED VESSELS BY VESSEL LENGTH CLASS ............................... 725
TABLE 278 - ESTIMATED ADVERSE IMPACT AND AFFECTED VESSELS BY PRIMARY GEAR ........................................... 725
TABLE 279 - ESTIMATED ADVERSE REVENUE IMPACTS AND NUMBER OF AFFECTED VESSELS BY HOME PORT STATE 726
TABLE 280 - ESTIMATED IMPACTS AND NUMBER OF AFFECTED VESSELS BY DEPENDENCE ON GROUNDFISH TRIP
REVENUE .............................................................................................................................................................. 727
TABLE 281 - ESTIMATED ADVERSE REVENUE IMPACTS AND NUMBER OF AFFECTED VESSELS BY GROSS SALES
CATEGORY ........................................................................................................................................................... 727
TABLE 282 - ESTIMATED ADVERSE REVENUE IMPACTS AND NUMBER OF AFFECTED VESSELS BY PORT GROUPS ........ 728
TABLE 283 - ALTERNATIVE 2A CHANGE IN GROUNDFISH TRIP AND TOTAL TRIP REVENUE BY HOME PORT STATE ..... 729
TABLE 284 - ALTERNATIVE 2A ESTIMATED IMPACT AND NUMBER OF AFFECTED VESSELS BY IMPACT CATEGORY ..... 730
TABLE 285 - ALTERNATIVE 2A ESTIMATED ADVERSE IMPACT AND AFFECTED VESSELS BY VESSEL LENGTH CLASS .. 730
TABLE 286 - ALTERNATIVE 2A ESTIMATED ADVERSE IMPACT AND AFFECTED VESSELS BY PRIMARY GEAR ............... 731
TABLE 287 - ALTERNATIVE 2A ESTIMATED ADVERSE REVENUE IMPACTS AND NUMBER OF AFFECTED VESSELS BY
HOME PORT STATE ............................................................................................................................................... 731
TABLE 288 - ALTERNATIVE 2A ESTIMATED IMPACTS AND NUMBER OF AFFECTED VESSELS BY DEPENDENCE ON
GROUNDFISH TRIP REVENUE ................................................................................................................................ 732
TABLE 289 - ALTERNATIVE 2A ESTIMATED ADVERSE REVENUE IMPACTS AND NUMBER OF AFFECTED VESSELS BY
GROSS SALES CATEGORY ..................................................................................................................................... 732
TABLE 290 - ALTERNATIVE 2A ESTIMATED ADVERSE REVENUE IMPACTS AND NUMBER OF AFFECTED VESSELS BY PORT
GROUPS ................................................................................................................................................................ 733
TABLE 291 - ALTERNATIVE 4 CHANGE IN GROUNDFISH TRIP AND TOTAL TRIP REVENUE BY HOME PORT STATE........ 734
TABLE 292 - ALTERNATIVE 4 ESTIMATED IMPACTS AND NUMBER OF AFFECTED VESSELS BY IMPACT CATEGORY...... 734
TABLE 293 - ALTERNATIVE 4 ESTIMATED ADVERSE IMPACT AND AFFECTED VESSELS BY VESSEL LENGTH CLASS ..... 735
TABLE 294 - ALTERNATIVE 4 ESTIMATED ADVERSE IMPACT AND AFFECTED VESSELS BY PRIMARY GEAR ................. 735
TABLE 295 - ALTERNATIVE 4 ESTIMATED ADVERSE REVENUE IMPACTS AND NUMBER OF AFFECTED VESSELS BY HOME
PORT STATE.......................................................................................................................................................... 736
TABLE 296 - ALTERNATIVE 4 ESTIMATED IMPACTS AND NUMBER OF AFFECTED VESSELS BY DEPENDENCE ON
GROUNDFISH TRIP REVENUE ................................................................................................................................ 736
TABLE 297 - ALTERNATIVE 4 ESTIMATED ADVERSE REVENUE IMPACTS AND NUMBER OF AFFECTED VESSELS BY GROSS
SALES CATEGORY ................................................................................................................................................ 737
TABLE 298 - ALTERNATIVE 4 ESTIMATED ADVERSE REVENUE IMPACTS AND NUMBER OF AFFECTED VESSELS BY PORT
GROUPS ................................................................................................................................................................ 738
TABLE 299 – OTHER PERMITS HELD BY VESSELS WITH A NORTHEAST MULTISPECIES FMP PERMIT FOR PERMIT YEAR
2008. PERMIT CATEGORIES THAT ARE UNDERLINED IN BOLD ITALICS ARE LIMITED ACCESS, MORATORIUM, OR
RESTRICTED ELIGIBILITY PERMITS ........................................................................................................................ 780
TABLE 300 – CURRENT SKATE STATUS. SEE TEXT FOR PENDING UPDATES. .................................................................. 791
TABLE 301 - TOTAL SKATE LANDINGS (LB LIVE WEIGHT) BY DAS PROGRAM, 2000-2007............................................ 792

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

Contents
Tables
TABLE 302 - SUMMARY EFFECTS OF PAST, PRESENT AND REASONABLY FORESEEABLE FUTURE ACTIONS ON THE VECS
IDENTIFIED FOR AMENDMENT 16 (BASED ON ACTIONS LISTED IN APPENDIX I). .................................................... 802
TABLE 302 - CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT BASELINE CONDITIONS OF THE VECS.............................................. 804
TABLE 304 - CUMULATIVE EFFECTS EXPECTED ON THE VECS. ..................................................................................... 808
TABLE 305 – EXPECTED NEGATIVE HABITAT IMPACTS OF PROPOSED ACTION RELATIVE TO NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE
............................................................................................................................................................................. 846
TABLE 306 – EXPECTED POSITIVE HABITAT IMPACTS OF PROPOSED ACTION RELATIVE TO NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE
............................................................................................................................................................................. 847
TABLE 307 – LIST OF PUBLIC MEETINGS ........................................................................................................................ 853
TABLE 308 - SUMMARY OF GB COD HOOK SECTOR PERFORMANCE ............................................................................ 863
TABLE 309 - SUMMARY OF SECTOR PSC MINUS 2005-2007 AVERAGE SHARE BY SECTOR ........................................... 865
TABLE 310 - SUMMARY OF GB COD HOOK SECTOR PERFORMANCE ............................................................................ 869

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

Contents
Figures

2.3

Figures

FIGURE 1 – GOM ROLLING CLOSURES FOR WHICH SECTORS DO NOT RECEIVE AN AUTOMATIC EXEMPTION .................. 120
FIGURE 3 – PROPOSED REPORTING AREAS ..................................................................................................................... 124
FIGURE 4 - CURRENT CAI HOOK GEAR HADDOCK SAP AREA (LEFT) AND PROPOSED AREA (RIGHT)............................ 129
FIGURE 5 – OPTION 3A, 24-HOUR CLOCK, RESTRICTED GEAR AREAS............................................................................. 136
FIGURE 6 – PROPOSED AREAS FOR DIFFERENTIAL DAS AM.......................................................................................... 151
FIGURE 7 – NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE CLOSED AREAS USED AS MORTALITY CONTROLS................................................ 202
FIGURE 8 – NO ACTION DIFFERENTIAL DAS AREA, YEAR ROUND CLOSED AREAS, AND HABITAT CLOSED AREAS .......... 203
FIGURE 9 – OPTION 2A PROPOSED DIFFERENTIAL DAS AREAS ...................................................................................... 207
FIGURE 10– OPTION 4, RESTRICTED GEAR AREA ............................................................................................................ 209
FIGURE 11 – PROPOSED AREA FOR DROP CHAIN REQUIREMENT ..................................................................................... 211
FIGURE 12 – DIAGRAM OF DROP CHAIN REQUIREMENTS FOR SNE ................................................................................ 212
FIGURE 13 - NORTHEAST U.S SHELF ECOSYSTEM ......................................................................................................... 224
FIGURE 14 - GULF OF MAINE ......................................................................................................................................... 225
FIGURE 15 - NORTHEAST REGION SEDIMENTS, MODIFIED FROM POPPE ET AL. (1989A AND B)....................................... 227
FIGURE 16 - WATER MASS CIRCULATION PATTERNS IN THE GEORGES BANK - GULF OF MAINE REGION ....................... 228
FIGURE 17 - DISTRIBUTION OF THE SEVEN MAJOR BENTHIC ASSEMBLAGES IN THE GULF OF MAINE. ............................ 231
FIGURE 18 - SEDIMENTARY PROVINCES OF EASTERN GEORGES BANK. BASED ON CRITERIA OF SEA FLOOR MORPHOLOGY,
TEXTURE, SEDIMENT MOVEMENT AND BEDFORMS, AND MEAN TIDAL BOTTOM CURRENT SPEED (CM/S). RELICT
MORAINES (BOULDERY SEAFLOOR) ARE ENCLOSED BY DASHED LINES. SEE TABLE 3 FOR DESCRIPTIONS OF
PROVINCES. SOURCE: VALENTINE AND LOUGH (1991). ....................................................................................... 235
FIGURE 19 - MID-ATLANTIC BIGHT SUBMARINE MORPHOLOGY. SOURCE: STUMPF AND BIGGS (1988)........................ 239
FIGURE 20 - MAJOR FEATURES OF THE MID-ATLANTIC AND SOUTHERN NEW ENGLAND CONTINENTAL SHELF. SOURCE:
STUMPF AND BIGGS (1988)................................................................................................................................... 239
FIGURE 21 - SUMMARY OF ALL REEF HABITATS (EXCEPT BIOGENIC, SUCH AS MUSSEL OR OYSTER BEDS) IN THE MIDATLANTIC BIGHT.................................................................................................................................................. 241
FIGURE 22 SCHEMATIC REPRESENTATION OF MAJOR MACROFAUNAL ZONES ON THE MID-ATLANTIC SHELF.
APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF RIDGE FIELDS INDICATED. SOURCE: REID AND STEIMLE (1988). ............................ 243
FIGURE 23 - PRINCIPAL SUBMARINE CANYONS ON SOUTHERN FLANK OF GEORGES BANK. DEPTHS IN METERS............ 248
FIGURE 24 - PRINCIPAL SUBMARINE CANYONS IN MID-ATLANTIC BIGHT. DEPTHS IN METERS..................................... 249
FIGURE 25 - GEORGES BANK COD SPAWNING STOCK BIOMASS (SSB) AND FISHING MORTALITY (F) ESTIMATES DURING
1978-2007 REPORTED IN GARM III ALONG WITH 80% CONFIDENCE INTERVALS FOR 2007 ESTIMATES. .............. 277
FIGURE 26 - GEORGES BANK HADDOCK SPAWNING STOCK BIOMASS (SSB) AND FISHING MORTALITY (F) ESTIMATES
DURING 1931-2007 REPORTED IN GARM III ALONG WITH 80% CONFIDENCE INTERVALS FOR 2007 ESTIMATES.. 278
FIGURE 27 - GEORGES BANK YELLOWTAIL FLOUNDER SPAWNING STOCK BIOMASS (SSB) AND FISHING MORTALITY (F)
ESTIMATES DURING 1973-2007 REPORTED IN GARM III ALONG WITH 80% CONFIDENCE INTERVALS FOR 2007
ESTIMATES............................................................................................................................................................ 279
FIGURE 28 - SOUTHERN NEW ENGLAND/MID-ATLANTIC YELLOWTAIL FLOUNDER SPAWNING STOCK BIOMASS (SSB)
AND FISHING MORTALITY (F) ESTIMATES DURING 1973-2007 REPORTED IN GARM III ALONG WITH 80%
CONFIDENCE INTERVALS FOR 2007 ESTIMATES..................................................................................................... 280
FIGURE 29 - CAPE COD/GULF OF MAINE YELLOWTAIL FLOUNDER SPAWNING STOCK BIOMASS (SSB) AND FISHING
MORTALITY (F) ESTIMATES DURING 1985-2007 REPORTED IN GARM III ALONG WITH 80% CONFIDENCE
INTERVALS FOR 2007 ESTIMATES.......................................................................................................................... 281
FIGURE 30 - GULF OF MAINE COD SPAWNING STOCK BIOMASS (SSB) AND FISHING MORTALITY (F) ESTIMATES DURING
1982-2007 USING GARM III DATA ALONG WITH 80% CONFIDENCE INTERVALS FOR 2007 ESTIMATES. ............... 282
FIGURE 31 - WITCH FLOUNDER SPAWNING STOCK BIOMASS (SSB) AND FISHING MORTALITY (F) ESTIMATES DURING
1982-2007 REPORTED IN GARM III ALONG WITH 80% CONFIDENCE INTERVALS FOR 2007 ESTIMATES. .............. 283
FIGURE 32 - AMERICAN PLAICE SPAWNING STOCK BIOMASS (SSB) AND FISHING MORTALITY (F) ESTIMATES DURING
1980-2007 REPORTED IN GARM III ALONG WITH 80% CONFIDENCE INTERVALS FOR 2007 ESTIMATES. MOHN’S
RHO ADJUSTED SSB AND F ARE SHOWN IN THE TERMINAL YEAR WITH A GREEN DIAMOND. ................................. 284
FIGURE 33 - GULF OF MAINE WINTER FLOUNDER SPAWNING STOCK BIOMASS (SSB) AND FISHING MORTALITY (F)
ESTIMATES DURING 1982-2007 REPORTED IN GARM III ALONG WITH 80% CONFIDENCE INTERVALS FOR 2007
ESTIMATES FROM THE SPLIT SURVEY RUN. THIS ASSESSMENT WAS NOT ACCEPTED.................................................. 285
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

Contents
Figures
FIGURE 34 - SOUTHERN NEW ENGLAND/MID-ATLANTIC WINTER FLOUNDER SPAWNING STOCK BIOMASS (SSB) AND
FISHING MORTALITY (F) ESTIMATES DURING 1981-2007 REPORTED IN GARM III ALONG WITH 80% CONFIDENCE
INTERVALS FOR 2007 ESTIMATES.......................................................................................................................... 286
FIGURE 35 - GEORGES BANK WINTER FLOUNDER SPAWNING STOCK BIOMASS (B) AND FISHING MORTALITY (F)
ESTIMATES DURING 1982-2007 REPORTED IN GARM III ALONG WITH 80% CONFIDENCE INTERVALS FOR 2007
ESTIMATES............................................................................................................................................................ 287
FIGURE 36 - GEORGES BANK/GULF OF MAINE WHITE HAKE SPAWNING STOCK BIOMASS (SSB) AND FISHING MORTALITY
RATE (F) DURING 1963-2007 REPORTED IN GARM III. ........................................................................................ 288
FIGURE 37 - GEORGES BANK/GULF OF MAINE POLLOCK BIOMASS INDEX (B) AND RELATIVE EXPLOITATION RATE (F)
DURING 1963-2008 BASED ON THE FALL SURVEY INDEX. STATUS DETERMINATION IS BASED ON THE THREE YEAR
AVERAGE PLOTTED WITH A GREEN DIAMOND. ...................................................................................................... 289
FIGURE 38 - GULF OF MAINE/GEORGES BANK ACADIAN REDFISH SPAWNING STOCK BIOMASS (SSB) AND FISHING
MORTALITY (F) ESTIMATES DURING 1913-2007 REPORTED IN GARM III ALONG WITH 80% CONFIDENCE
INTERVALS FOR 2007 ESTIMATES. MOHN’S RHO ADJUSTED SSB AND F ARE SHOWN IN THE TERMINAL YEAR WITH A
GREEN DIAMOND. ................................................................................................................................................. 290
FIGURE 39 - OCEAN POUT BIOMASS INDEX (B) AND RELATIVE EXPLOITATION RATE (F) DURING 1968-2007 REPORTED IN
GARM III............................................................................................................................................................. 291
FIGURE 40 - GULF OF MAINE/GEORGES BANK WINDOWPANE FLOUNDER BIOMASS INDEX (B) AND RELATIVE
EXPLOITATION RATE (F) DURING 1975-2007 REPORTED IN GARM III. BIOMASS STATUS DETERMINATION IS BASED
ON THE THREE YEAR AVERAGE PLOTTED WITH A GREEN DIAMOND....................................................................... 292
FIGURE 41 - SOUTHERN NEW ENGLAND/MID-ATLANTIC WINDOWPANE FLOUNDER BIOMASS INDEX (B) AND RELATIVE
EXPLOITATION RATE (F) DURING 1975-2007 REPORTED IN GARM III. BIOMASS STATUS DETERMINATION IS BASED
ON THE THREE YEAR AVERAGE PLOTTED WITH A GREEN DIAMOND....................................................................... 293
FIGURE 42 - GULF OF MAINE HADDOCK SPAWNING STOCK BIOMASS (SSB) AND FISHING MORTALITY (F) DURING 19772007 REPORTED IN GARM III ALONG WITH 80% CONFIDENCE INTERVALS FOR 2007 ESTIMATES. ....................... 294
FIGURE 43 - ATLANTIC HALIBUT BIOMASS (B) AND FISHING MORTALITY RATE (F) DURING 1800-2007 REPORTED IN
GARM III............................................................................................................................................................. 295
FIGURE 44 - AVERAGE PRICE AND DAS LEASED BY MONTH DURING FISHING YEAR 2005 .......................................... 359
FIGURE 45 - AVERAGE PRICE AND DAS LEASED BY MONTH DURING FISHING YEAR 2006 .......................................... 360
FIGURE 46 - AVERAGE PRICE AND DAS LEASED BY MONTH DURING FISHING YEAR 2007 .......................................... 360
FIGURE 47 - NUMBER OF DAS LEASED BY PRICE RANGE DURING FISHING YEARS 2005-2007..................................... 361
FIGURE 48 - NUMBER OF DAS LEASED BY PRICE RANGE DURING FISHING YEARS 2005-2007..................................... 362
FIGURE 49 - VESSEL SAFETY INCIDENTS IN ALL FISHERIES ............................................................................................ 371
FIGURE 50 – VESSEL SAFETY INCIDENTS IN TRAWL, GILLNET, AND LONGLINE FISHERIES .............................................. 371
FIGURE 51 - FISHING VESSEL DEATHS AND INJURIES IN ALL FISHERIES .......................................................................... 372
FIGURE 52 - FISHING VESSEL DEATHS AND INJURIES ON TRAWL, LONGLINE, AND GILLNET VESSELS ............................. 372
FIGURE 53 – INJURIES ON TRAWL, GILLNET, OR LONGLINE VESSELS, BY SIZE, FY 2001 – FY 2008 ............................... 373
FIGURE 54 – DEATHS ON TRAWL, GILLNET, OR LONGLINE VESSELS, BY SIZE ................................................................. 373
FIGURE 55 – TRAWL, GILLNET, AND LONGLINE SAFETY INCIDENT LOCATIONS, FY 2001 – FY 2008............................. 374
FIGURE 56 – DISCARD/KEPT RATIOS FOR GB COD; VESSELS IN FIXED GEAR SECTOR IN FY 2007 ................................. 384
FIGURE 57 - CUMULATIVE PERCENT OF SNE/MA WINTER FLOUNDER KEPT BY NUMBER OF FISH PER ANGLER (ALL
MODES COMBINED) ............................................................................................................................................... 388
FIGURE 58 - CUMULATIVE PERCENT OF SNE/MA WINTER FLOUNDER TRIPS BY KEEP CLASS (ALL MODES COMBINED)
............................................................................................................................................................................. 389
FIGURE 59 - CUMULATIVE PERCENT OF GOM WINTER FLOUNDER HARVEST BY NUMBER OF FISH PER ANGLER (ALL
MODES COMBINED) ............................................................................................................................................... 390
FIGURE 60 - CUMULATIVE PERCENT OF TRIPS KEEPING GOM WINTER FLOUNDER (ALL MODES COMBINED) .............. 391
FIGURE 61. SIZE DISTRIBUTION OF WINTER FLOUNDER HARVEST ................................................................................ 392
FIGURE 62- DISTRIBUTION OF KEPT FISH PER ANGLER TRIP FOR GOM HADDOCK PARTY/CHARTER MODE ............... 395
FIGURE 63 - CUMULATIVE PERCENT OF PARTY/CHARTER ANGLER TRIPS THAT RETAINED GOM HADDOCK ............... 396
FIGURE 64 - DISTRIBUTION OF NUMBERS OF GOM HADDOCK KEPT PER ANGLER FOR PRIVATE BOAT MODE ............. 397
FIGURE 65 - CUMULATIVE PERCENT OF PRIVATE BOAT MODE TRIPS THAT KEPT GOM HADDOCK BY KEEP CLASS .... 398
FIGURE 66 - SIZE DISTRIBUTION OF KEPT GOM HADDOCK FOR PARTY/CHARTER MODE ............................................ 399
FIGURE 67 - DISTRIBUTION OF RELEASED GOM HADDOCK BY PARTY MODE ANGLERS .............................................. 400
FIGURE 68 - DISTRIBUTION OF KEPT POLLOCK BY NUMBER OF FISH PER ANGLER IN THE PARTY/CHARTER MODE .......... 403

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

Contents
Figures
FIGURE 69 - CUMULATIVE PERCENT OF PARTY/CHARTER MODE TRIPS KEEPING POLLOCK BY NUMBER KEPT PER
ANGLER TRIP ........................................................................................................................................................ 404
FIGURE 70 - CUMULATIVE PERCENT OF KEPT POLLOCK BY NUMBERS OF POLLOCK PER ANGLER TRIP IN THE PRIVATE
BOAT/SHORE MODE. .............................................................................................................................................. 405
FIGURE 71 - CUMULATIVE PERCENT OF PRIVATE BOAT MODE TRIPS KEEPING POLLOCK BY NUMBER KEPT PER ANGLER
TRIP ...................................................................................................................................................................... 406
FIGURE 72 - SIZE DISTRIBUTION OF HARVESTED POLLOCK POOLED ACROSS ALL MODES ............................................... 407
FIGURE 73 - CUMULATIVE PERCENT OF GEORGES BANK COD KEPT BY PARTY/CHARTER ANGLERS BY NUMBER OF FISH
KEPT PER ANGLER TRIP ........................................................................................................................................ 410
FIGURE 74 - CUMULATIVE PERCENT OF PARTY/CHARTER ANGLER TRIPS THAT KEPT GEORGES BANK COD................ 411
FIGURE 75 - CUMULATIVE PERCENT OF GULF OF MAINE COD KEPT IN THE PARTY/CHARTER MODE ........................... 412
FIGURE 76 - CUMULATIVE PERCENT OF PARTY/CHARTER ANGLER TRIPS THAT RETAINED GULF OF MAINE COD........ 413
FIGURE 77 - CUMULATIVE PERCENT OF KEPT GULF OF MAINE COD PRIVATE BOAT MODE BY NUMBER KEPT PER
ANGLER TRIP ........................................................................................................................................................ 414
FIGURE 78 – CUMULATIVE PERCENT OF PRIVATE BOAT ANGLER TRIPS THAT RETAINED GULF OF MAINE COD .......... 415
FIGURE 79- CUMULATIVE DISTRIBUTION OF GULF OF MAINE COD PARTY/CHARTER MODE HARVEST BY LENGTH ..... 416
FIGURE 80 - CUMULATIVE DISTRIBUTION OF GULF OF MAINE COD PARTY MODE RELEASED CATCH BY LENGTH ....... 417
FIGURE 81 – GROUNDFISH DISCARDS (MT), 1989-2007 ................................................................................................ 436
FIGURE 82 – GB COD LANDINGS AND DISCARDS (MT), 1989-2007............................................................................... 438
FIGURE 83 – GOM COD LANDINGS AND DISCARDS (MT), 1989-2007 ........................................................................... 439
FIGURE 84 – GB HADDOCK LANDINGS AND DISCARDS (MT), 1989-2007...................................................................... 440
FIGURE 85 – GOM HADDOCK LANDINGS AND DISCARDS (MT), 1989-2007.................................................................. 441
FIGURE 86 – GB YELLOWTAIL FLOUNDER LANDINGS AND DISCARDS (MT), 1989-2007............................................... 442
FIGURE 87 – SNE/MA YELLOWTAIL FLOUNDER LANDINGS AND DISCARDS (MT), 1989-2007 ..................................... 443
FIGURE 88 – CC/GOM YELLOWTAIL FLOUNDER LANDINGS AND DISCARDS (MT), 1989-2007 .................................... 444
FIGURE 89 – AMERICAN PLAICE LANDINGS AND DISCARDS (MT), 1989-2007 .............................................................. 446
FIGURE 90 – WITCH FLOUNDER LANDINGS AND DISCARDS (MT), 1989-2007 ............................................................... 447
FIGURE 91 – GB WINTER FLOUNDER LANDINGS AND DISCARDS (MT), 1989-2007....................................................... 449
FIGURE 92 – GOM WINTER FLOUNDER LANDINGS AND DISCARDS (MT), 1989-2007 ................................................... 450
FIGURE 93 – SNE/MA WINTER FLOUNDER LANDINGS AND DISCARDS (MT), 1989-2007 ............................................. 452
FIGURE 94 – ACADIAN REDFISH DISCARDS (MT), 1989-2007........................................................................................ 453
FIGURE 95 – ACADIAN REDFISH LANDINGS AND DISCARDS (MT), 1989-2007............................................................... 453
FIGURE 96 – WHITE HAKE COMMERCIAL DISCARDS (MT), 1989-2007 ......................................................................... 454
FIGURE 97 – WHITE HAKE LANDINGS AND DISCARDS (MT), 1989-2007 ....................................................................... 454
FIGURE 98 – GOM/GB WINDOWPANE FLOUNDER DISCARDS (MT), 1989-2007............................................................ 455
FIGURE 99 – GOM/GB WINDOWPANE FLOUNDER LANDINGS AND DISCARDS (MT), 1989-2007 .................................. 455
FIGURE 100 – SNE/MA WINDOWPANE FLOUNDER DISCARDS (MT), 1989-2007........................................................... 456
FIGURE 101 – SNE/MA WINDOWPANE FLOUNDER LANDINGS AND DISCARDS (MT), 1989-2007 ................................. 457
FIGURE 102 – OCEAN POUT DISCARDS (MT), 1989-2007 .............................................................................................. 458
FIGURE 103 – OCEAN POUT LANDINGS AND DISCARDS (MT), 1989-2007 ..................................................................... 458
FIGURE 104 – ATLANTIC HALIBUT DISCARDS (MT), 1989-2007.................................................................................... 459
FIGURE 105 – ATLANTIC HALIBUT LANDINGS AND DISCARDS (MT), 1989-2007........................................................... 459
FIGURE 106 – ATLANTIC WOLFFISH DISCARDS, 1989 - 2007.......................................................................................... 460
FIGURE 107 – ATLANTIC WOLFFISH LANDINGS AND DISCARDS, 1989 -2007.................................................................. 460
FIGURE 108 – GOM COD RECREATIONAL CATCH AND RECREATIONAL DISCARDS (MT), 1989-2007 ........................... 461
FIGURE 109 – GOM HADDOCK RECREATIONAL LANDINGS AND LIVE RELEASES (MT), 1989-2007 IN NUMBERS OF FISH
............................................................................................................................................................................. 462
FIGURE 110 – GOM WINTER FLOUNDER RECREATIONAL DISCARDS AND RECREATIONAL DISCARD MORTALITY
(THOUSANDS OF FISH), 1989-2007........................................................................................................................ 463
FIGURE 111 – SNE/MA WINTER FLOUNDER RECREATIONAL DISCARDS AND RECREATIONAL DISCARD MORTALITY
(THOUSANDS OF FISH), 1989-2007........................................................................................................................ 464
FIGURE 112 – RECREATIONAL POLLOCK CATCH AND DISCARDS (MT), 1989-2007 ....................................................... 464
FIGURE 113 – GB COD PREDICTED SSB, PROPOSED ACTION ......................................................................................... 489
FIGURE 114 - GOM COD PREDICTED SSB, PROPOSED ACTION ...................................................................................... 489
FIGURE 115 - GB HADDOCK PREDICTED SSB, PROPOSED ACTION ................................................................................ 490
FIGURE 116 – GOM HADDOCK PREDICTED SSB, PROPOSED ACTION ............................................................................ 490
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

Contents
Figures
FIGURE 117 - GB YELLOWTAIL FLOUNDER PREDICTED SSB, (BASED ON GARM III) ................................................... 491
FIGURE 118 – SNE/MA YELLOWTAIL FLOUNDER PREDICTED SSB, PROPOSED ACTION ............................................... 491
FIGURE 119 – CC/GOM YELLOWTAIL FLOUNDER PREDICTED SSB, PROPOSED ACTION ............................................... 492
FIGURE 120 – AMERICAN PLAICE PREDICTED SSB, PROPOSED ACTION ........................................................................ 492
FIGURE 121 – WITCH FLOUNDER PREDICTED SSB, PROPOSED ACTION ......................................................................... 493
FIGURE 122 – GB WINTER FLOUNDER PREDICTED SSB, PROPOSED ACTION ................................................................. 493
FIGURE 123 – SNE/MA WINTER FLOUNDER PREDICTED SSB, F=0................................................................................ 494
FIGURE 124 – SNE/MA WINTER FLOUNDER PREDICTED SSB, PROPOSED ACTION (F=0.098) ....................................... 494
FIGURE 125 - REDFISH PREDICTED SSB, PROPOSED ACTION ......................................................................................... 495
FIGURE 126 – ATLANTIC HALIBUT PREDICTED SSB, PROPOSED ACTION ...................................................................... 495
FIGURE 127 – WHITE HAKE, PROPOSED ACTION ........................................................................................................... 496
FIGURE 128 - LOCATION OF HAULS USED IN THE BAIT SELECTIVITY STUDY (FIGURE PROVIDED BY CAPE COD
COMMERCIAL HOOK FISHERMAN’S ASSOCIATION). THIS REPRESENTS HAUL LOCATIONS IN THE FULL DATASET.
FROM CORREIA (2008). ........................................................................................................................................ 515
FIGURE 129 – TRAWL SELECTIVITY FOR HADDOCK (BASED ON HE AT AL 2005). NOTE MINIMUM SIZE IS CONVERTED TO
FORK LENGTH FOR PLOTTING TO BE CONSISTENT WITH SELECTIVITY CURVE. ....................................................... 522
FIGURE 130 – OBSERVED LENGTHS OF SNE/MA WINTER FLOUNDER, CY 2002 - 2008................................................. 530
FIGURE 131 - OBSERVED LENGTHS OF SNE/MA YELLOWTAIL FLOUNDER, CY 2002 - 2008 ......................................... 531
FIGURE 132 – OBSERVED DISCARD LOCATIONS FOR SNE/MA WINTER FLOUNDER, CY 2002 - 2008 ............................ 532
FIGURE 133 - GILLNET SELECTION CURVES FOR COD, POLLOCK, AND HADDOCK (FROM MARCIANO ET AL. 2005). NOTE
DIFFERENT SCALES. IN ALL GRAPHS, CURVE TO THE FAR RIGHT IS 6.5 INCH (CURRENT MINIMUM MESH SIZE).AND
EACH CURVE TO THE LEFT OF THAT IS ½ INCH SMALLER ....................................................................................... 535
FIGURE 134 – CATCH PER SET AND CATCH PER FOOT OF NET FOR HADDOCK, COD, AND POLLOCK ON OBSERVED GILLNET
SETS CATCHING HADDOCK IN THE GULF OF MAINE, CY 1996 – 2008................................................................... 536
FIGURE 135 - HADDOCK LENGTH FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION FROM THE SPRING 2008 NEFSC TRAWL SURVEY ........ 537
FIGURE 136 – PERCENT CHANGES IN FISHING MORTALITY RESULTING FROM A FIXED CHANGE IN EXPLOITATION. ........ 551
FIGURE 137 – GB COD PREDICTED SSB, NO ACTION .................................................................................................... 556
FIGURE 138 - GOM COD PREDICTED SSB, NO ACTION ................................................................................................. 556
FIGURE 139 - GB HADDOCK PREDICTED SSB, NO ACTION ............................................................................................ 557
FIGURE 140 - GB YELLOWTAIL FLOUNDER PREDICTED SSB, NO ACTION ..................................................................... 557
FIGURE 141 – SNE/MA YELLOWTAIL FLOUNDER PREDICTED SSB, NO ACTION ........................................................... 558
FIGURE 142 – CC/GOM YELLOWTAIL FLOUNDER PREDICTED SSB, NO ACTION........................................................... 558
FIGURE 143 – AMERICAN PLAICE PREDICTED SSB, NO ACTION .................................................................................... 559
FIGURE 144 – WITCH FLOUNDER PREDICTED SSB, NO ACTION .................................................................................... 559
FIGURE 145 – SNE/MA WINTER FLOUNDER PREDICTED SSB, NO ACTION ................................................................... 560
FIGURE 146 - REDFISH PREDICTED SSB, NO ACTION .................................................................................................... 560
FIGURE 147 – SUMMARY OF CURRENT HARBOR PORPOISE TAKE REDUCTION PLAN REQUIREMENTS .............................. 586
FIGURE 148 – HPTRP PROPOSED MANAGEMENT AREAS (WITHOUT CONSEQUENCE AREAS) .......................................... 587
FIGURE 149 – HPTRP PROPOSED MANAGEMENT AREAS (WITH CONSEQUENCE AREAS) ................................................ 588
FIGURE 150 – PERCENT OF OBSERVED HAULS THAT USED THE CORRECT NUMBER OF PINGERS PER STRING IN
TIMES/AREAS WHEN PINGERS WERE REQUIRED. (FROM THE EA FOR THE HPTRP, 2009) ..................................... 590
FIGURE 151 – OBSERVED TAKES OF ATLANTIC WHITE-SIDED DOLPHINS IN THE VICINITY OF THE EASTERN U.S./CANADA
HADDOCK SAP, 1992-2008.................................................................................................................................. 593
FIGURE 152 COMBINED CONTRIBUTION SHARES FOR NO ACTION AND PROPOSED ACTION - OPTION 1........................ 674
FIGURE 153 COMBINED CONTRIBUTION SHARES FOR PROPOSED ACTION - OPTION 1 AND OPTION 2 ........................... 675
FIGURE 154 COMBINED CONTRIBUTION SHARES FOR PROPOSED ACTION - OPTION 1 AND OPTION 3 ........................... 676
FIGURE 155 COMBINED CONTRIBUTION SHARES FOR PROPOSED ACTION – OPTION 1 AND OPTION 4........................... 677
FIGURE 156 - RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GROUNDFISH DEPENDENCE, DAS USE RATE AND AVERAGE REVENUE IMPACT. 724
FIGURE 157 - MONKFISH EXEMPTED FISHING AREAS ..................................................................................................... 789
FIGURE 158 – SURVEY WEIGHT PER TOW OF HADDOCK AND SEA SCALLOPS IN CAI, 1996 – 2007. ................................ 797
FIGURE 159 – SURVEY WEIGHT PER TOW OF HADDOCK AND SEA SCALLOPS IN CAII, 1996 - 2007 ................................ 798
FIGURE 160 – COMPARISON OF OBSERVED MID-WATER TRAWL TOWS CATCHING HERRING (ALL OBSERVED TOWS ARE
FROM 2005-2008, AUGUST – OCTOBER) AND HADDOCK SURVEY DISTRIBUTION IN CAI. ..................................... 799

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

Contents
List of Acronyms

2.4

List of Acronyms

ABC
ACL

Acceptable Biological Catch
Annual Catch Limit
ALWTRP Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan
AM
Accountability Measure
APA
Administrative Procedures Act
ASMFC Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission
CAI
Closed Area I
CAII
Closed Area II
CC
Cape Cod
CPUE
catch per unit of effort
DAM
Dynamic Area Management
DAS
days-at-sea
DFO
Department of Fisheries and Oceans (Canada)
DMF
Division of Marine Fisheries (Massachusetts)
DMR
Department of Marine Resources (Maine)
DPWG
Data Poor Working Group
DSEIS
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
EA
Environmental Assessment
EEZ
exclusive economic zone
EFH
essential fish habitat
EIS
Environmental Impact Statement
ESA
Endangered Species Act
F
Fishing mortality rate
FAAS
Flexible Area Action System
FEIS
Final Environmental Impact Statement
FMP
fishery management plan
FSCS
Fisheries Scientific Computer System
FW
framework
FY
fishing year
GAMS
General Algebraic Modeling System
GARM
Groundfish Assessment Review Meeting
GB
Georges Bank
GIS
Geographic Information System
GOM
Gulf of Maine
GRT
gross registered tons/tonnage
HAPC
habitat area of particular concern
HPTRP Harbor Porpoise Take Reduction Plan
I/O
input/output
IFQ
individual fishing quota
ITQ
individual transferable quota
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

Contents
List of Acronyms

IVR
IWC
LOA
LPUE
MA
MAFAC
MAFMC
MARFIN
MEY
MMC
MMPA
MPA
MRFSS
MSFCMA
MSMC
MSY
NAA
NAPA
NAS
NEFMC
NEFSC
NEPA
NERO
NFMA
NLCA
NMFS
NOAA
NSTC
NT
NWA
OBDBS
OLE
OY
PBR
PDT
PRA
PREE
RFA
RMA
RPA
SA
SAFE
SAP

interactive voice response reporting system
International Whaling Commission
letter of authorization
landings per unit of effort
Mid-Atlantic
Marine Fisheries Advisory Committee
Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council
Marine Fisheries Initiative
maximum economic yield
Multispecies Monitoring Committee
Marine Mammal Protection Act
marine protected area
Marine Recreational Fishery Statistics Survey
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
Multispecies Monitoring Committee
maximum sustainable yield
No Action Alternative
National Academy of Public Administration
National Academy of Sciences
New England Fishery Management Council
Northeast Fisheries Science Center
National Environmental Policy Act
Northeast Regional Office
Northern Fishery Management Area (monkfish)
Nantucket Lightship closed area
National Marine Fisheries Service
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Northern Shrimp Technical Committee
net tonnage
Northwest Atlantic
Observer database system
Office for Law Enforcement (NMFS)
optimum yield
Potential Biological Removal
Plan Development Team
Paperwork Reduction Act
Preliminary Regulatory Economic Evaluation
Regulatory Flexibility Act
Regulated Mesh Area
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives
Statistical Area
Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation
Special Access Program

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

Contents
List of Acronyms

SARC
SAW
SBNMS
SEIS
SFA
SFMA
SIA
SNE
SNE/MA
SSB
SSC
TAC
TED
TEWG
TMGC
TMS
TRAC
TSB
USCG
USFWS
VEC
VMS
VPA
VTR
WGOM
WO
YPR

Stock Assessment Review Committee
Stock Assessment Workshop
Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
Sustainable Fisheries Act
Southern Fishery Management Area (monkfish)
Social Impact Assessment
southern New England
southern New England-Mid-Atlantic
spawning stock biomass
Social Science Committee
total allowable catch
turtle excluder device
Turtle Expert Working Group
Transboundary Management Guidance Committee
ten minute square
Transboundary Resources Assessment Committee
total stock biomass
United States Coast Guard
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
Valued Ecosystem Component
vessel monitoring system
virtual population analysis
vessel trip report
Western Gulf of Maine
weighout
yield per recruit

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

Contents
List of Acronyms

Intentionally Blank

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

Background and Purpose
Brief History of Prior Management Actions

3.0 Background and Purpose
3.1

Brief History of Prior Management Actions

The Northeast Multispecies FMP was adopted in 1986 to manage key groundfish stocks from Maine to
Cape Hatteras. Management actions under this FMP were summarized in Amendment 5, adopted in 1994.
The key actions leading to this action since Amendment 5 are summarized below.
Sustainable Fisheries Act
Despite the efforts taken in Amendment 5 and the cutbacks made by the industry during the following
years, new legislation in 1996 set the standards for effective management even higher. The MagnusonStevens Act was amended with the adoption of the Sustainable Fisheries Act (SFA) in 1996. The SFA
placed new demands on fishery management plans to reduce bycatch, identify and protect Essential Fish
Habitat, and minimize adverse effects of fishing on EFH to the extent practicable. It also initiated new
National Standards in the MSFCMA that emphasized minimizing impacts to fishing communities,
improving safety at sea, significantly reducing bycatch and improving the collection and use of fishery and
biological data.
Amendment 7
The amendment accelerated the DAS effort reduction program established in Amendment 5, eliminated
significant exemptions from the current effort control program, and provided incentives to fish exclusively
with mesh larger than the minimum required, broadened the area closures to protect juvenile and spawning
fish, and increased the haddock possession limit to 1,000 pounds. It established a rebuilding program for
Georges Bank (GB) and Southern New England (SNE) yellowtail flounder, GB and GOM cod, and GB
haddock based primarily on days-at-sea (DAS) controls, area closures, and minimum mesh size.
Additionally, the amendment changed existing permit categories and initiated several new ones, including
an open access multispecies permit for limited access sea scallop vessels. Amendment 7 also created a
program for reviewing the management measures annually and making changes to the regulations through
the framework adjustment process to insure that plan goals would be met. Of all the major changes to the
Northeast Multispecies Plan prior to 2000, Amendments 5 and 7 had the greatest impact on the fishery, both
for stock rebuilding and in shaping the socio-economic conditions of the industry and fishing communities.
Amendment 9
Amendment 9 (1999) had a significant impact on the fishery, establishing new status determination criteria
(overfishing definitions) and setting the Optimum Yield (OY) for twelve groundfish species to bring the
plan into complete compliance with the SFA.
Amendment 11 and Essential Fish Habitat
This amendment adopted essential fish habitat (EFH) for New England groundfish stocks. However,
according to a 2000 ruling in American Oceans Campaign et al. v. Daley et al. [Civil Action No. 99982(GK)], EFH considerations continued to be inadequate in fishery management plans. The prosecution
contested the adequacy of evaluations of fishing gear impacts on EFH and challenged NMFS approval of
amendments and management plans which did not fully address the impacts of fishing on habitat. The U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia found that the agency’s decisions on the subject EFH
amendments were in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, but found that the EAs for the Councils’
amendments were inadequate and in violation of NEPA. The court determined that the EAs prepared for the
EFH provisions of the fishery management plans did not fully consider all relevant alternatives. The court
specifically criticized several of the EAs for evaluating only two options for the EFH amendments: either
approval of the amendment or status quo. Additionally, the decision noted that the descriptions and analyses
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

Background and Purpose
Brief History of Prior Management Actions

of the environmental impacts of the Proposed Actions and alternatives were vague or not fully explained.
The court ordered NMFS to complete a new and thorough NEPA analysis for each EFH amendment named
in the suit. Amendments 11 and 12 addressed the SFA requirements for designating EFH for all managed
species and for managing whiting (silver hake), red hake and offshore hake through a separate small-mesh
multispecies management plan implemented in 2000.
Amendment 13 Development and Implementation
Work on Amendment 13 began in February 1999, when the Council published a Notice of Intent
recognizing the need for rebuilding plans that would be compliant with the SFA and new status
determination criteria adopted by Amendment 9. In December 2001, during the drafting of the Amendment
and immediately following the implementation of Framework 33, Conservation Law Foundation and other
organizations successfully filed suit against NMFS alleging that the rebuilding plans NMFS had
implemented were not consistent with Amendment 9 overfishing definitions (Conservation Law
Foundation et al. v. Evans et al.). Additionally, they charged that there had been a consistent failure in
management plans to assess bycatch reporting and establish measures to minimize bycatch and bycatch
mortality (when bycatch is unavoidable). The plaintiffs prevailed on the issue that the rebuilding plans
failed to implement a Standardized Bycatch Reporting Methodology. After a long series of negotiations
among various parties, interim measures were adopted by the court and NMFS was instructed to submit a
management plan to comply with the law. Amendment 13, which went into effect on May 1, 2004, met the
requirements for compliance with that court order.
The main purpose of Amendment 13 was to end overfishing on groundfish stocks and to rebuild all of the
groundfish stocks that were overfished. The Amendment addressed stock rebuilding issues, greatly reduced
fishing effort and capacity in the multispecies fishery, included measures to minimize bycatch, instituted
improved reporting and recordkeeping requirements, and implemented additional measures to specifically
address habitat protection. The Amendment also mandated a periodic review of stock data midway through
the implementation period, and called for a correction in management figures if necessary.
During the period of Amendment 13 development, the relationship between the multispecies fishing
industry and the scientific community underwent some important changes. In September 2002, a Cape Cod
fisherman convinced federal scientists that the trawl warps used to tow the groundfish survey gear used by
the Northeast Fisheries Science Center were of different lengths, a fact that was confirmed. A series of
workshops took place to assess how the warp length discrepancy and confounding structural problems with
the otter trawl doors and footrope may have affected data quality. Issues surrounding the trawl warps,
reference point estimates, and a trawl survey experiment were evaluated by Payne et al. (2003) and the
general conclusion was that the information available was suitable for management. Payne et al. (2003) also
provided numerous recommendations for further investigation of the issues raised. It is likely that in the
future, greater emphasis will be placed on collaborative efforts in fisheries research in order to improve
communication and understanding among fishermen and scientists, and to collect more comprehensive and
complete data for management of the fishery.
Framework Adjustments and Interim Rule
The Northeast Multispecies FMP has been subject to many additional changes since its inception. Besides
the 12 amendments implemented prior to development of Amendment 13, the multispecies plan has been
altered multiple times since 1994.
The Council has held four annual reviews and made eight adjustments to the FMP to address Amendment 7
rebuilding needs (Frameworks 20, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30 and 33). In 1999, the Council submitted Framework 27
as the primary annual adjustment framework. Both Frameworks 27 and 30 contained trip limits for GOM
and GB cod. In both cases, the Regional Administrator was authorized to reduce the trip limit when 75
percent of the target TAC for each stock was reached. On May 28, 1999, the Regional Administrator
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

Background and Purpose
Brief History of Prior Management Actions

reduced the GOM cod limit implemented on May 1, 1999 of 200 pounds per day to 30 pounds per day, just
three weeks into the fishing year. However, even before the trip limit was reduced, fishermen reported
excessive discards of cod as seasonal closures ended. NMFS announced on July 29, 1999 that it
disapproved the 30-day closure on Georges Bank proposed in Framework 30, but it approved the trip limit,
which took effect on August 15. Framework 30 established a GB cod trip limit of 2,000 pounds per
day/20,000 pounds maximum possession limit.
The Council submitted Framework 31 on October 14, 1999, which addressed discards in the Georges Bank
and Gulf of Maine cod fisheries. NMFS approved an increased GOM cod trip limit on January 5, 2000, but
it disapproved the change to the GB cod trip limit program that would have eliminated the authority of the
Regional Administrator to make mid-season adjustments to the trip limit when 75 percent of the target TAC
is reached.
Framework 33 was implemented on June 1, 2000 to reduce or maintain fishing mortality rates for the five
critical stocks below fishing mortality rebuilding targets established by Amendment 7. This framework
maintained some seasonal closures and implemented new ones, maintained or reduced trip limits, and
mandated that party and charter vessels obtain a letter of authorization to fish in any of the GOM closed
areas. The Council also proposed changes to the large mesh permit category, but these were not approved
by NMFS. Implementation of Framework 33 was immediately followed by the CLF lawsuit mentioned
earlier.
Framework 36 was completed in December 2001, but the Council did not adopt the framework and it was
not submitted. Frameworks 37 and 38 instituted changes to management of the whiting fishery.
Framework 39 was drafted jointly with the scallop fishery and addressed scallop area management in parts
of the groundfish closed areas, specifically portions of the Nantucket Lightship Area and Closed Areas I
and II. Area closures had occurred to achieve groundfish mortality and rebuilding objectives, resulting in
increased scallop biomass. The purpose of the Framework was to allow access to those scallop resources
while providing measures to minimize and control bycatch of groundfish, including when and where
scallop fishing could occur, as well as a limit on how much bycatch was to be allowed.
Framework 40A was created in order to mitigate economic and social impacts from the effort reductions
imposed by Amendment 13. It was intended to provide additional opportunities for vessels in the fishery to
target healthy stocks. The framework instituted the Category B (Regular) DAS Pilot Program, the Eastern
US/Canada Haddock SAP Pilot Program, and the Closed Area I Hook Gear Haddock Special Access
Program, a program that allows longline vessels to fish in Closed Area I to target haddock. The SAP
program was only partially approved and did not allow participation by vessels that are not members of the
GB Cod Hook Sector. In addition, FW 40-A relieved an Amendment 13 restriction that prohibited vessels
from fishing both in the Western U.S./Canada Area and outside that area on the same trip, and allowed for
increase in incidental TACs.
Following Framework 40A, the Council sought to improve the effectiveness of the Amendment 13 effort
control program, including the opportunities developed to use effort to target healthy stocks and other
measures that were adopted to facilitate adaptation to the amendment’s effort reductions. In Framework
40B, the Council considered measures to clarify the DAS allocations and provide a small allocation to all
permit holders, to modify the DAS leasing and transfer programs, to improve opportunities to target healthy
stocks, and to adjust the Georges Bank cod hook sector provisions in order to meet those purposes. The
framework also included measures developed to address interactions between the herring fishery and
regulated groundfish, since catches of groundfish that occur in the herring fishery are wasted and do not
contribute to optimum yield in the groundfish fishery. Some of the actions in the framework included
revising the Days-at-Sea (DAS) Leasing and Transfer Programs, modifying provisions for the Closed Area
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

Background and Purpose
Brief History of Prior Management Actions

(CA) II Yellowtail Flounder Special Access Program (SAP), changing the allocation criteria for the
Georges Bank (GB) Cod Hook Sector (Sector), establishing a DAS credit for vessels standing by an
entangled whale, implementing new notification requirements for Category 1 herring vessels, and removing
the net limit for trip gillnet vessels.
The purpose of Framework 41 was to revise the Closed Area 1 Hook Gear Haddock SAP, which was
implemented in Framework 40A, to allow participation by non-sector vessels. The program, like many of
the measures in Framework 40A was intended to help mitigate the economic and social impacts caused by
the effort reductions adopted by Amendment 13.
Framework 42 introduced several measures to achieve rebuilding of fishing mortality targets. It included
measures to implement the biennial adjustment, anticipated by Amendment 13, to the Northeast
Multispecies FMP. The Framework instituted a wide range of changes included a Georges Bank yellowtail
rebuilding strategy, several changes to the Category B (regular) DAS Program and two Special Access
Programs, and an extension of the DAS leasing program. Additionally, it introduced the differential DAS
system, where DAS are counted at the rate of 2:1 in certain areas in the Gulf of Maine (GOM) and Southern
New England (SNE).
Framework 43 imposed a haddock catch cap for the herring fishery. Large haddock year classes had been
leading to increased haddock bycatch by mid-water herring trawlers, particularly on Georges Bank. The
Framework included a catch cap for haddock, an incidental catch allowance for other regulated
multispecies, and a monitoring program for the catch cap. The existing classification of herring midwater
trawl and purse seine gear relative to the multispecies fishery were also modified through the action.
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act
In 2006, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act was passed,
which updated the original Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA) as well as the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996.
The bill reauthorized the MSA for Fiscal Years 2007 through 2013.
The MSA reauthorization contained several provisions that introduced new legal requirements for fishery
management. Some of the key changes include:
•

•

A firm deadline to end overfishing in America by 2011. For stocks that are currently experiencing
overfishing, the deadline for ending that overfishing is 2010. Two key approaches are included to
achieve this mandate:
o The reauthorization requires the use of Annual Catch Levels (ACLs) to prevent
overfishing. Every management plan must contain an ACL, which is set at a level to
ensure that overfishing does not occur in the particular fishery. The ACL is required to be
set at or below the Acceptable Biological Catch (ABC) of the fishery. Furthermore, the
Councils are directed to follow the recommendations of the Scientific and Statistical
Committee (SSC), and the ACL cannot exceed the SSC’s recommendation for ABC.
o Accountability Measures (AMs) are required in each management plan that detail what
actions will be taken in the event of an overage of harvest level.
A Limited Access Privilege Program (LAPP) provision.
o In the MSA, the term "limited access privilege" means a Federal permit, issued as part of a
limited access system under section 303A to harvest a quantity of fish expressed by a unit
or units representing a portion of the total allowable catch of the fishery that may be
received or held for exclusive use by a person; and: (a) includes an individual fishing
quota; but (b) does not include community development quotas as described in section
305(i).

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

Background and Purpose
Brief History of Prior Management Actions

Much of the responsibility for the development of LAPPs, and their requirements, was
delegated to the Councils, including what types of LAPPs can best meet the needs of a
specific fishery, eligibility criteria for participation in a LAPP, and procedures for
allocating harvest privileges among participants in a fishery. Questions have been raised
about what entities qualify as LAPPs.

One more requirement in the MSA reauthorization applies specifically to New England fisheries. The Act
states that the NEFMC, “may not approve or implement a fishery management plan or amendment that
creates an individual fishing quota program, including a Secretarial plan, unless such a system, as ultimately
developed, has been approved by more than 2⁄3 of those voting in a referendum among eligible permit
holders…”. Thus, a system for creating a referendum and determining voting eligibility would need to be
formulated if the Council chose to pursue IFQs as a management tool.
FW 42 Lawsuit
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts and State of New Hampshire filed suit against the Secretary of
Commerce over FW 42 provisions. Two of the counts bear on this action. First, the lawsuit argued that the
Closed Area Model (CAM) used to develop measures did not comply with National Standard 2
requirements to use the best available science. Second, the lawsuit argued that measures were more
stringent than necessary because the Council and NMFS failed to consider the “mixed stock exception”
during the design of measures. This exception allows overfishing to continue under certain limited
conditions.
On January 26, 2009, the U.S. District Court in Massachusetts issued an order in the case. The order
affirmed the use of the CAM and rejected the argument that its use was not the “best available science.”
The court also said “The court temporarily suspends Framework 42 pending serious consideration and
analysis of the Mixed-Stock Exception by Defendant.” The court’s order led to considerable confusion over
the management measures that remained in place. After filings by the parties in the suit, the court issued a
subsequent ruling on February 17, 2009 that said (in part): “Framework 42 is hereby reinstated except for
those provisions relating to the 2:1 DAS counting system, which remains suspended for thirty-eight (38)
days from the date of this order.”
The impacts of this liberalization of fishing rules are uncertain. It may result in increased fishing mortality
for stocks caught in the differential DAS counting areas. These include inshore GOM stocks (GOM cod,
CC/GOM yellowtail flounder, pollock, plaice, GOM winter flounder, white hake, and witch flounder) and
SNE/MA yellowtail flounder and SNE/MA winter flounder. It is not clear whether this will result in more
stringent regulations under the interim rule or will increase the magnitude of the mortality reductions
needed in this action.
On February 23, 2009, the court extended the suspension of DAS counting provisions until April 10, 2009
so that the Council could review a NMFS filing on the applicability of the mixed stock exception; other FW
42 measures were reinstated. On April 10, 2009, the court reinstated FW 42 in its entirety.
Interim Rule
Because Amendment 16 was not implemented on May 1, 2009, NMFS issued an interim rule that took
effect on that date (74 FR 17030). The measures are designed to reduce fishing mortality to lower levels
until Amendment 16 is implemented. Interim regulations for commercial vessels include the Amendment
13 default DAS change (an 18 percent reduction in available Category A DAS) and expansion of the
differential DAS counting area in Southern New England. Landing SNE/MA winter flounder, northern
windowpane flounder, and ocean pout were prohibited, and a trip limit was adopted for witch flounder. The
SNE/MA winter flounder SAP was eliminated for the duration of the rule, as was the state waters winter
flounder exemption. The interim regulation includes mitigation measures such as a reduction in the
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

Background and Purpose
Brief History of Prior Management Actions

minimum size for haddock, removal of the conservation tax for DAS transfers, liberalization of the DAS
leasing program, extension of the Eastern U.S./Canada haddock SAP, and modifications to the CAI Hook
Gear Haddock SAP. Recreational measures include an extension of the seasonal closure for GOM cod, a
10-fish bag limit on GB cod for party/charter vessels, a lowering of the minimum size for haddock, and a
prohibition on retention of winter flounder in the SNE/MA stock area.
The interim regulation is effective for 180 days, but it is expected it will be extended for the entire fishing
year (FY 2009).

3.1.1 Other actions affecting the fishery
3.1.1.1

Actions to Minimize Interactions with Protected Species

Many of the factors that serve to mitigate the impacts of the groundfish fishery on protected species are
currently being implemented in the Northeast Region under either the Atlantic Large Whale Take
Reduction Plan (ALWTRP) or the Harbor Porpoise Take Reduction Plan (HPTRP). In addition, the
Northeast Multispecies FMP has undergone repeated consultations pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act (ESA), with the most recent Biological Opinion dated June 14, 2001. In that Opinion, NMFS
concluded that the continued authorization of the Northeast multispecies FMP would jeopardize the
continued existence of ESA-listed right whales as a result of entanglement in gillnet gear. A Reasonable
and Prudent Alternative (RPA) was provided to remove the likelihood of jeopardy, and the RPA measures
were implemented, in part, through the ALWTRP. On April 2, 2008, NMFS reinitiated section 7
consultation on the continued authorization of the Northeast Multispecies FMP for two reasons: (1) new
information on the number of loggerhead sea turtles captured in bottom otter trawl gear used in the fishery,
and (2) changes to the ALWTRP that will result in the elimination of measures that were incorporated as a
result of the RPA for the June 14, 2001, Opinion on the continued authorization of the Northeast
Multispecies FMP. The new consultation is on-going but is not complete as of the drafting of this
document.

3.1.1.2

Harbor Porpoise Take Reduction Plan

The Harbor Porpoise Take Reduction Plan (HPTRP) was developed pursuant to Section 118(f) of the
Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) to reduce the level of serious injury and mortality of the Gulf of
Maine/Bay of Fundy (GOM/BOF) stock of harbor porpoises due to incidental interactions with commercial
gillnet fishing gear. Prior to the development of the HPTRP, the bycatch estimate of the GOM/BOF stock
of harbor porpoises was estimated at 1,500 animals taken per year in U.S. commercial gillnet fisheries
between 1994 and 1998. This exceeded the stock’s potential biological removal (PBR) level by more than
threefold. Under the MMPA, NMFS was required to take action to reduce the serious injury and mortality
of harbor porpoises from incidental interactions with gillnet gear. Thus, NMFS formed two take reduction
teams – one to address interactions in the Gulf of Maine, and the other to address interactions in the MidAtlantic. Both provided NMFS with recommended measures for reducing these incidental interactions.
The HPTRP regulations, implemented on December 2, 1998 (63 FR 66464), are separated into two
components – Gulf of Maine (GOM) and Mid-Atlantic. The GOM component of the HPTRP manages
commercial gillnet gear that catches or is capable of catching multispecies through time and area
regulations throughout New England, from Maine to Rhode Island, during the months of August through
May. This includes seasonal gillnet closures during the peak months of the year during which harbor
porpoises are most concentrated in four of the six GOM management areas. During several other times of
the year when harbor porpoise concentrations are considered to be less than at the peak time periods, the
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

Background and Purpose
Brief History of Prior Management Actions

HPTRP management areas require the seasonal use of acoustic deterrent devices, known as pingers, on all
sink gillnet gear. Pingers are placed approximately every 300 ft (91.4 m) on a string of gillnets and
broadcast a ten kilohertz (kHz) sound at 132 decibels every four seconds to alert and/or deter harbor
porpoises. Before using pingers on gillnet gear inside HPTRP management areas, fishing vessel operators
must complete pinger training administered by NMFS to review the current HPTRP management measures
and ensure that pingers are properly deployed and maintained. Those who complete the training are
required to carry on board their vessel a NMFS-issued pinger training authorization in order to fish in
management areas that require pingers.
The Mid-Atlantic component of the HPTRP manages commercial gillnet fishing through time and area
regulations from New York through North Carolina from January through April. In lieu of pinger
requirements, the Mid-Atlantic component of the HPTRP established large and small mesh gear
specification requirements in which fishermen set gear 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.
After implementation of the HPTRP, harbor porpoise bycatch decreased and remained below PBR until
2004. However, bycatch showed an increasing trend after 2001, and again exceeded PBR beginning in
2004. From 2001 through 2005, the average annual mortality was 652 harbor porpoises per year in U.S.
commercial fisheries, exceeding the PBR of 610 animals.
Based on this information, NMFS was required to take further action to reduce harbor porpoise takes in
gillnet fisheries. As such, NMFS reconvened the Harbor Porpoise Take Reduction Team (HPTRT) in
December 2007 to review and discuss the most recent harbor porpoise abundance and bycatch information
and to evaluate additional potential measures that may be necessary to reduce harbor porpoise bycatch back
to levels below PBR. NMFS is currently in a rule-making to propose modifications to the HPTRP,
developed through consultation with the HPTRT, which are intended to reduce harbor porpoise mortalities
and serious injuries in Northeast and Mid-Atlantic commercial gillnet fisheries to levels that are again
below PBR, thus satisfying NMFS’ responsibilities under the MMPA. A proposed rule was published on
July 21, 2009 (74 Federal Register 36058), with the comment period ending August 20, 2009. A final
decision is pending.

3.1.1.3

Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan

The ALWTRP contains a series of regulatory measures designed to reduce the likelihood of fishing gear
entanglements of right, humpback, fin, and minke whales in the North Atlantic. The main tools of the plan
include a combination of broad gear modifications and time/area closures (which are being supplemented
by progressive gear research), expanded disentanglement efforts, extensive outreach efforts in key areas,
and an expanded right whale surveillance program to supplement the Mandatory Ship Reporting System.
Key regulatory changes implemented in 2002 included: 1) new gear modifications; 2)
implementation of a Dynamic Area Management system (DAM) of short-term closures to protect
unexpected concentrations of right whales in the Gulf of Maine; and 3) establishment of a Seasonal Area
Management system (SAM) of additional gear modifications to protect known seasonal concentrations of
right whales in the southern Gulf of Maine and Georges Bank.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

Background and Purpose
Purpose and Need for Action

On June 21, 2005, NMFS published a proposed rule (70 Federal Register 35894) for changes to the
ALWTRP, and published a final rule on October 5, 2007 (72 Federal Register 57104). The new ALWTRP
measures expand the gear mitigation measures by: (a) including additional trap/pot and net fisheries (i.e.,
gillnet, driftnet) to those already regulated by the ALWTRP, (b) redefining the areas and seasons within
which the measures would apply, (c) changing the buoy line requirements, (d) expanding and modifying the
weak link requirements for trap/pot and net gear, and (e) requiring (within a specified timeframe) the use of
sinking and/or neutrally buoyant groundline in place of floating line for all fisheries regulated by the
ALWTRP on a year-round or seasonal basis.

3.1.1.4

Atlantic Trawl Gear Take Reduction Team

The first meeting of the Atlantic Trawl Gear Take Reduction Team (ATGTRT) was held in September
2006. The ATGTRT was convened by NMFS as part of a settlement agreement between the Center for
Biological Diversity and NMFS to address the incidental mortality and serious injury of long-finned pilot
whales, short-finned pilot whales, common dolphins, and Atlantic white-sided dolphins in several trawl
gear fisheries operating in the Atlantic Ocean. Incidental takes of pilot whales, common dolphins and
Atlantic white-sided dolphins have occurred in fisheries operating under the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and
Butterfish FMP, as well as in mid-water and bottom trawl fisheries in the Northeast. The last meeting of
the TRT was in April 2007 and work is ongoing.

3.1.1.5

EFH Omnibus Amendment

The NEFMC is currently developing an Omnibus Essential Fish Habitat Amendment for all of its FMPs.
The amendment is being completed in two phases. Phase I, completed in 2007, reviewed and updated FH
designations and considered identification of HAPCs. Phase II will review and update the gear effects
evaluation and consider alternatives for optimizing management measures for minimizing the adverse
effects of fishing on EFH across all FMPs. Implementation is expected in 2010/2011.

3.2

Purpose and Need for Action

This amendment is designed to meet all the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act for the Northeast
Multispecies Fishery, and is prepared by the New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC;
Council). After the Proposed Action is reviewed, the Amendment will be approved and implemented by the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Fifteen species of groundfish are managed under this plan.
Twelve species are managed as large mesh species, based on fish size and type of gear used to harvest the
fish: Atlantic cod, haddock, pollock, yellowtail flounder, witch flounder, winter flounder, windowpane
flounder, American plaice, Atlantic halibut, redfish, ocean pout and white hake. Three species — silver
hake (whiting), red hake, and offshore hake — are managed under a separate small mesh multispecies
program, Amendment 12 to the Northeast Multispecies FMP. Several large mesh species are managed as
two or more separate stocks, based on geographic region. For example, Atlantic cod is managed as two
stocks: Georges Bank cod and Gulf of Maine cod. This action considers including an additional stock in the
management unit (Atlantic wolffish).
Several groundfish stocks are either overfished, have been declared overfished in the past, or are
experiencing overfishing and are currently rebuilding under programs that do not meet the requirements of
the M-S Act. While many stocks will continue to increase under current fishing mortality rates – indeed,
some will increase to levels not observed in the last thirty years – most stocks will not achieve levels that
will support maximum sustainable yields.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

Background and Purpose
Purpose and Need for Action

In the 1996 reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, Congress recognized that one of the greatest
long-term threats to the viability of commercial and recreational fisheries is the continuing loss of marine,
estuarine, and other aquatic habitats. To ensure habitat considerations receive increased attention for the
conservation and management of fishery resources, the amended Magnuson-Stevens Act included new EFH
requirements, and each fishery management plan must now include specific EFH provisions. Section
303(a)(7) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that each FMP describe and identify EFH for the fishery
based on the guidelines established by the Secretary (50 CFR part 600, Subpart J), minimize to the extent
practicable adverse effects on EFH caused by fishing, and identify other actions to encourage the
conservation and enhancement of EFH. The description and identification of EFH is applied as included in
Amendment 13 to the Northeast Multispecies FMP of 1998.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

Background and Purpose
Notice of Intent and Scoping Process

Need

Purpose

Rebuild overfished fisheries by continuing
programs adopted in Amendment 13 and, if
necessary, adopt additional rebuilding
programs for the 13 stocks determined to be
overfished by GARM III

•

End overfishing by 2010/2011 consistent with
the status of the stock and the requirements of
the MSA of 2006

•

Implement additional tools to meet mortality
objectives prescribed by the MSA of 2006 or
existing rebuilding plans

•
•

Implement additional sectors
Adjust effort control program for nonsector vessels

Minimize, to the extent practicable, the adverse
effects of fishing on essential fish habitat to
comply with section 303(a)(7) of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act

•

Minimize, to the extent practicable,
adverse effects on EFH caused by
fishing, and identify other actions to
encourage the conservation and
enhancement of EFH.

Minimize bycatch and minimize mortality of
bycatch that cannot be avoided in accordance
with National Standard 9 (MSA §301(a))

•
•

Implement additional sectors
Consider increases in trip limits

Provide meaningful alternatives for reducing
harvesting capacity in accordance with 40 CFR
1508.9(b) and NAO 216-6 Section 5.04b.1

•

Measures to reduce effort, including
DAS reductions, trip limit reductions,
and area closures

Address numerous issues with respect to the
administration of the fishery in order to
promote efficiency and improve management
capabilities

•

Implement additional sectors and
address monitoring, enforcement, and
transparency
Define Annual Catch Limits
Changes to the DAS Transfer and DAS
Leasing programs
Address reporting requirements
Consider SAP revisions

•

•
•
•
•

3.3

Measures to reduce effort, including
DAS reductions, trip limit reductions,
and area closures
If necessary, adjust mortality targets
for rebuilding programs
Implement Annual Catch Limits and
Accountability Measures in FY 2010
Adjust effort controls as necessary to
reduce fishing mortality

Notice of Intent and Scoping Process

The Council announced its intent to prepare Amendment 16 and an Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS)
on November 6, 2006 (71 Federal Register 64941). The scoping period extended from that date until
December 29, 2006. The announcement stated that Amendment 16 will adjust management measures to
continue the formal stock rebuilding programs adopted by Amendment 13 and achieve optimum yield. The
Council said that it would consider alternative management systems in addition to adjustments to the
existing effort control system. The notice also announced that wolffish and cusk may be added to the
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

Background and Purpose
Notice of Intent and Scoping Process

fishery management unit. This decision was to be made after assessments scheduled for 2008, but the
assessment for cusk was postponed and was not completed in time to incorporate results into this action.
At the beginning of the scoping period, the Multispecies Oversight Committee met with the Groundfish
Advisory Panel and the Recreational Advisory Panel to develop standards that new management systems
should meet. The recommendations from this meeting were considered by the Council. The Council
published the following guidance for alternative management system proposals:
• Any new management system should clearly state the method of allocation proposed for individual,
gear, or other sectors, and area TAC distributions for all Category A Days-at-Sea permit holders in the
Gulf of Maine, Georges Bank, and Southern New England managed under the Northeast Multispecies
FMP.
• Proposed management concepts may be less dependent upon input controls such as effort closures
and trip limits and create a closer link between allocation and catch.
• A new management proposal should include a mechanism for accountability, for all permit holders,
of all catch of all stocks (managed under the Northeast Multispecies FMP) caught during his/her fishing
operation regardless of allocation.
• Any new management system that is narrow in focus relative to gears, areas/sub-regions or permit
categories and is absent detail for application to the Gulf of Maine, Georges Bank, and Southern New
England areas should not be considered for inclusion as a management system proposal. (Such
narrowly focused concepts may be considered as a component of a comprehensive management system
at a later point in this process).
A scoping document with this guidance was published on the Council’s web page (www.nefmc.org) and
distributed at scoping hearings.
The Council conducted eight hearings to receive public comments (Ellsworth and Portland, Maine,
Portsmouth, New Hampshire, Gloucester and Fairhaven, Massachusetts, South Kingstown, Rhode Island,
Riverhead and New York City, New York). Notice of the scoping hearings was mailed to over 1,800
interested parties. This notice also announced the availability of the scoping document and listed four ways
to submit comments: in person at any of the hearings, or in writing submitted through mail, facsimile, or
email. Attendance was light, with only one attendee at one hearing and fewer than ten speakers at several.
More comments were received in writing.
Comments identified issues for consideration. Perspectives on each of the issues varied widely. The major
issues identified and discussed are summarized below. This summary does not reflect every scoping
comment received. Comments are grouped into broad categories, but in some cases the specific comments
overlapped several of these categories. Refer to the letters and scoping meeting summaries to gain a better
perspective on individual comments, ideas, and suggestions. The Council received suggestions for three
new management systems, often with several variations. Changes were suggested to the existing effort
control system, and comments were received on other topics as well.
Days-at-Sea (DAS)
• Comments supported and opposed to the existing effort control system based on DAS.
• A written comment provided an extensive list of proposed changes to the DAS system, including:
counting DAS as a minimum of twenty-four hours, eliminating spawning block days out of the fishery,
altering closed areas (including seasonal or rolling closures), modifying gear requirements, creating
additional SAPs or modifying existing SAPs, modifying the DAS leasing and transfer programs, and reexamining all exempted fisheries to determine if they continue to meet groundfish bycatch restrictions.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

Background and Purpose
Notice of Intent and Scoping Process

• A written comment proposed modifying the effort control system to charge differential DAS based
on landed catch rather than area fished.
• A comment suggested that if the Council abandons the DAS system then vessels that leased DAS to
other vessels will be at a disadvantage if future access is based on recent fishing history.
• One comment suggested continuing to use DAS, but also defining an inshore and offshore area.
Fishermen would declare into an area for the fishing year, and DAS might be charged at a differential
rate in each area.
Hard TACs/Output Controls/ITQs
• Comments both supported and opposed the use of quotas (hard TACs) in this fishery.
• A proposal suggested quotas for all groundfish species and all species caught by groundfish vessels.
This proposal suggested alternatives for allocating these quotas to various gear, vessel size, and
temporal periods. It also suggested real-time landings reporting and a mandated level of observer
coverage.
• One comment suggested using quotas (hard TACs) as a backstop for any management system
adopted to manage groundfish. This proposal also suggested using quotas (bycatch caps) and other
measures to minimize bycatch.
• An Individual Transferable Fishing Quota (ITQ) proposal was received from an organization. This
organization prefers the DAS system, but argued that if quotas were adopted an ITQ was the only way
to make them effective. The proposal detailed options for initial allocation of catch based on a
combination of DAS and permit catch history, limits on ownership and acquisition of quota, transfers of
quota, and management responses to an underage or overage of catch.
• One comment suggested using a system called “stewardship shares.” While similar to an ITQ, it
differs in that the share owned by permit holders also represents a share of the stock biomass. An
analogy is that the share of the resource represents a capital account and the share of the annual TAC is
the interest produced. Permit holders can, within limits, withdraw from either in a given fishing year.
• One comment suggested using ITQs only on weak stocks, while continuing to use the DAS system
for other stocks.
Area Management
• A proposal from a coalition of organizations and individuals proposed area management. Elements
of this proposal included defining management areas that reflect ecological and biological uniqueness.
Each area would have a finite, annual limit of fish that can be harvested from that area. Area-specific
management rules would be developed with the participation of fishermen and local stakeholders from
the area. Over time, local governance structures would be developed that would be nested within the
current management system. Boundaries would be permeable – vessels could fish in more than one
area. Real-time catch reporting would be developed. As an example of how this system could work, an
additional submission proposed a specific area management structure and measures for an area off
eastern Maine.
• Comments were received from a variety of individuals and organizations that supported the area
management concept.
Point System
• An organization proposed a management system titled the “point system.” Each permit would be
allocated a quantity of points based on its DAS allocation, baseline characteristic of the vessel, and past
fishing history. These points would be the currency charged for landing regulated groundfish. For each
regulated stock, point values (based primarily on the biological status of the stock) would be
established. Generally, point values would be higher for stocks in poor condition, which would
encourage fishermen to target stocks in healthy condition. Point values would be adjusted on a periodic
basis over the course of the fishing year so that the catches do not exceed the target TACs for each
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

Background and Purpose
Notice of Intent and Scoping Process

stock. The proposal suggested mechanisms to track catch and points, free transferability of points, and
retention of all legal-sized groundfish. Interactions with other management systems (sectors, area
management) were also described.
• Numerous comments and petitions supported the point system.
Sectors
• Two organizations indicated their intent to submit applications for establishing new sectors.
Subsequent to the scoping period, one of these organizations withdrew its interest.
• A research organization suggested changes to the sector provisions of the management plan. These
included simplifying the process for submission and approval of new sectors, establishing a fixed time
period for determining catch history, allowing sectors to trade catch allocations with other sectors,
changing or eliminating the cap on sector allocations, and allowing sectors to define how catch histories
are treated for vessels in the sector.
• Two organizations suggested establishing a fixed time period for determining catch histories. One
of these organizations suggested allowing sectors to receive an allocation of all stocks caught, with a
provision for a default allocation for stocks that are rarely caught.
• One comment opposed the creation of sectors in the groundfish fishery.
Recreational Measures
• Several comments supported the creation of an allocation for recreational vessels (including
party/charter vessels).
• Two comments supported creation of a limited entry system for party/charter vessels fishing in the
Gulf of Maine.
• Several comments objected to the seasonal prohibition on catching cod in the Gulf of Maine.
Miscellaneous Comments
• One comment suggested changing the General Category Scallop Exempted Fishery east of Cape
Cod to allow fishing year-round.
• Several comments supported allowing a vessel to possess a scallop dredge permit and a limited
access multispecies permit at the same time.
• One comment suggested allowing the scallop closed area access program yellowtail flounder
incidental catch TAC to be allocated to different sectors of the scallop industry.
• One comment suggested renegotiating the U.S./Canada Resource Sharing Understanding to better
take into account U.S. concerns.
• Several comments suggested creating a research set-aside in the groundfish fishery.
• One comment suggested incorporating the findings of several research papers into the management
program, including a suggestion that fishery stocks should be managed as a portfolio with the goal of
providing the greatest benefits over time.
Response to Scoping Comments
Summaries of the scoping hearings and all written scoping comments were provided to all Council
members. These documents, as well as recordings of the scoping hearings, were made available to the
public. The Council reviewed these comments over a six month period. The Groundfish Plan Development
Team (PDT) reviewed the major management proposals on two separate occasions and provided comments
and concerns on the proposals. The Multispecies (Groundfish) Committee reviewed the proposals over the
course of three separate meetings, and the full Council discussed the comments at two meetings. Many of
the scoping comments were incorporated into the alternatives considered in this action. The Council took
the following action on the major scoping comments that were not developed into alternatives:
Days at Sea
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

Background and Purpose
Notice of Intent and Scoping Process

•

The Council decided to include only the following modifications to adjust the DAS system in
Amendment 16:
o count DAS as a minimum of 24 hours;
o consider adjustments in differential DAS program;
o trip limit triggers on stocks with trip limits;
o adjustments to Category A, B and C DAS split as a tool for adjustments to the DAS
program.
The Council decided to consider as an alternative a conservation tax on DAS leasing equal to or
greater than the tax on consolidation.

Hard TACs/Output Controls/ITQs
• The Council decided not to pursue an ITQ proposal because recent changes to the M-S Act impose
a requirement for an industry referendum before an ITQ can be implemented. The Council does not
believe there is enough time available to develop a proposal and complete the referendum in time
for a May 1, 2009 implementation date.
• The Council decided not to pursue a “stand-alone” hard TAC alternative – that is, a management
system that relies on hard TACs alone to control mortality. Past experiences with these systems
have shown that they are fraught with problems that are difficult to solve (Morgan, 1997).
• The Council directed the Groundfish Committee to consider hard TACs for the common pool as a
means for mortality control. (It was clarified that the intent of this motion is for the hard TAC to be
developed as a backstop to the effort control system, and not as a stand-alone hard TAC
alternative).
• The Council voted to include in Amendment 16, as an alternative for complying with ACL/AM
requirements, a hard TAC backstop based on Amendment 13 hard TAC options and direct the
Groundfish Committee to develop mitigating plans to avoid Olympic fishing and hard shutdowns.
Area Management and Point System
• Due to limited time and resources, the Council designated Amendment 17 as the mechanism to
further develop all management options including but not limited to area management, DAS
performance plan, point system, ITQ management, party/charter limited entry, and approval of any
new sector proposals or adjustments or modifications to existing sectors. Amendment 17 should
also develop and establish a complete allocation system for the groundfish fishery. That
Amendment will be developed following the completion of work on Amendment 16.
Sectors
• The Council decided to continue to pursue the development of sectors and approval of additional
sectors in Amendment 16.
Miscellaneous Comments
• The Council supported expansion of the General Category Scallop exemption east of Cape Cod to a
year-round fishery should an ongoing experiment demonstrate that this can be done without
substantial impacts on yellowtail flounder. The Council believes this change can be made under
existing NMFS authority without requiring a Council management action.
• The Council referred to the Scallop Oversight Committee suggestions that the scallop industry be
allowed to allocate closed area incidental catch TACs to different segments of the scallop fleet. The
Council and NMFS do not believe this decision requires a multispecies action and can be done in a
scallop management action.
• The Council made a request that NMFS evaluate VMS requirements and determine if other
processes, such as the “legacy code” and/or IVR, would be more practical than current practices.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

Background and Purpose
Goals and Objectives

•

3.4

The Council voted to advance the concept of the running clock to the Enforcement Committee to
see if enforcement problems cited in the past still exist.

Goals and Objectives

The goals and objectives of this amendment remain as described in Amendment 13:
Goal 1: Consistent with the National Standards and other required provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act and other applicable law, manage the northeast
multispecies complex at sustainable levels.
Goal 2: Create a management system so that fleet capacity will be commensurate with resource status so as
to achieve goals of economic efficiency and biological conservation and that encourages diversity
within the fishery.
Goal 3: Maintain a directed commercial and recreational fishery for northeast multispecies.
Goal 4: Minimize, to the extent practicable, adverse impacts on fishing communities and shoreside
infrastructure.
Goal 5: Provide reasonable and regulated access to the groundfish species covered in this plan to all
members of the public of the Untied States for seafood consumption and recreational purposes
during the stock rebuilding period without compromising the Amendment 13 objectives or
timetable. If necessary, management measures could be modified in the future to insure that the
overall plan objectives are met.
Goal 6: To promote stewardship within the fishery.
Objective 1: Achieve, on a continuing basis, optimum yield (OY) for the U.S. fishing industry.
Objective 2: Clarify the status determination criteria (biological reference points and control rules) for
groundfish stocks so they are consistent with the National Standard guidelines and applicable
law.
Objective 3:

Adopt fishery management measures that constrain fishing mortality to levels that are
compliant with the Sustainable Fisheries Act.

Objective 4:

Implement rebuilding schedules for overfished stocks, and prevent overfishing.

Objective 5:

Adopt measures as appropriate to support international transboundary management of
resources.

Objective 6:

Promote research and improve the collection of information to better understand groundfish
population dynamics, biology and ecology, and to improve assessment procedures in
cooperation with the industry.

Objective 7:

To the extent possible, maintain a diverse groundfish fishery, including different gear types,
vessel sizes, geographic locations, and levels of participation.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

Background and Purpose
Context of Existing Management System

Objective 8:

Develop biological, economic and social measures of success for the groundfish fishery and
resource that insure accountability in achieving fishery management objectives.

Objective 9:

Adopt measures consistent with the habitat provisions of the M-S Act, including
identification of EFH and minimizing impacts on habitat to the extent practicable.

Objective 10: Identify and minimize bycatch, which include regulatory discards, to the extent practicable,
and to the extent bycatch cannot be avoided, minimize the mortality of such bycatch.

3.5

Context of Existing Management System

Because of the complexity of groundfish management, this section will describe in general terms the
existing management program. This provides the public and reviewers an overview to place the proposed
changes in context. The NEPA requires that the No Action alternative be included when considering
changes to the management program. Subsequent sections will specifically identify the elements of the No
Action alternative as an option so that the choices considered by the Council are explicit. This section
briefly identifies key elements of No Action alternatives to provide context to this discussion.
The current management system for the Northeast Multispecies Fishery includes a wide range of measures
that have been adopted since the mid-1980s. In 1994, Amendment 5 adopted a moratorium on groundfish
permits and an effort control system that is the underpinning of the current measures (see section 3.1 for
additional details on past actions). The existing management measures for the Northeast Multispecies
Fishery were most recently altered by Amendment 13, FW 40A, FW 40B, FW 41 and FW 42. Regulations
that may be implemented as part of an interim action, emergency action, or court order are not considered
part of the existing system and are not considered elements of any No Action alternatives. Current
implementing regulations can be found at 50 CFR 648 Subpart F.
The most recent amendment to the Northeast Multispecies FMP that is focused on groundfish fishing
activities was Amendment 13, implemented May 1, 2004. The Amendment 13 measures can be sorted into
the following broad categories:
•
•
•

•

•
•

Clarification of status determination criteria: overfishing definitions
Rebuilding programs: fishing mortality trajectories designed to rebuild overfished stocks.
These trajectories serve as the fundamental basis for management measures.
Fishery administration measures: reporting requirements, provisions for sector allocation
and special access programs (SAPs), the U.S./Canada Resource Sharing Understanding,
permit requirements, DAS leasing, etc.
Measures to control capacity: a DAS transfer program that allows the permanent transfer of
DAS, and the categorization of DAS based on vessel fishing history during the period FY
1996 through FY 2001.
Measures to minimize, to the extent practicable, the adverse effects of fishing on essential
fish habitat (EFH).
Measures to meet fishing mortality targets: measures for the commercial and recreational
fishery designed to control fishing mortality.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

Background and Purpose
Context of Existing Management System

Subsequent to Amendment 13, a series of framework actions modified the measures. The following
discussion summarizes the most important elements of the management program as it existed during
consideration of this action. The discussion is organized into the broad categories identified.
Status Determination Criteria (Overfishing Definitions)
Amendments to the M-S Act in 1996 adopted a requirement that every management plan specify objective
and measurable criteria for determining when a stock is overfished and when it is subject to overfishing.
Often referred to as overfishing definitions, these status determination criteria were first adopted for the
Multispecies FMP with the approval of Amendment 9 in 1999. During the development of Amendment 13,
the criteria were re-evaluated by the NEFSC (NEFSC 2002a). These new criteria were adopted in
Amendment 13. They include estimates of SSBMSY, MSY, and FMSY, and target fishing mortality rates (or
appropriate proxies when these parameters cannot be determined). Amendment 13 also adopted a process to
adopt revised parameters and/or their numerical estimates. Amendment 13 also reiterated the definition of
OY applicable for each stock in this FMP. The amendment also called for a re-evaluation of the status
determination criteria in 2008 so that any necessary changes could be made at the beginning of the 2009
fishing year.
Under the No Action alternative, these status determination criteria and their numerical estimates would
remain the same. The Amendment 13 parameters and their estimates are shown in Table 30.
Rebuilding Programs
“Overfished” stocks are those that are at low biomass levels. Amendment 13 and FW 42 adopted formal
rebuilding programs for regulated groundfish stocks that are overfished. Stocks also need a rebuilding
program if they were previously identified at low biomass levels and have not yet finished rebuilding.
These programs take the form of a strategy that identifies target fishing mortality rates for these stocks.
Since management measures are designed to achieve the fishing mortality rates specified in the rebuilding
programs for overfished stocks, the rebuilding programs are a critical element of the management program.
Analyses in Amendment 13 demonstrates that if these fishing mortality rates are achieved, the overfished
stocks should rebuild to a biomass that will support maximum sustainable yield, and will do so within the
time period required by the M-S Act. The following stocks have formal rebuilding programs, though some
of these stocks are no longer overfished and the rebuilding fishing mortality target is higher than current
fishing mortality:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

GOM cod
GB cod
GB yellowtail flounder
Plaice
GB haddock
GOM haddock
CC/GOM yellowtail flounder
SNE/MA yellowtail flounder
SNE/MA winter flounder
Windowpane flounder (south)
White hake
Redfish

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

Background and Purpose
Context of Existing Management System

•
•

Ocean pout
Atlantic halibut

Amendment 13 also provided for a mid-course evaluation of rebuilding progress and changes to the
rebuilding programs as necessary. Changes might be necessary if the status determination criteria change or
if rebuilding progress is behind or ahead of schedule.
Under the No Action alternative, the rebuilding programs and the associated target fishing mortality rates
adopted by Amendment 13 and FW 42 would not be changed, regardless of stock conditions or any changes
to status determination criteria.
Fishery Administration
The management program includes measures that address a wide range of issue. These include monitoring
of catches and other fishing activity, measures to mitigate the social and economic impacts of rebuilding
programs, procedures for periodic adjustments to the management program, and other needs. The major
elements are briefly summarized below:
• Reporting requirements: Dealers are required to file weekly electronic reports of the purchase of
groundfish. Vessel operators report catches on paper forms that must be submitted within fifteen days
of the end of a month. Limited access vessels using a DAS are required to use a Vessel Monitoring
System (VMS) that reports position on an hourly basis. Vessel operators also use VMS to report several
types of fishing activity.
• Periodic adjustments: The FMP calls for a review of stock status and measures every two years,
with the submission of management changes as may be necessary. The FMP also describes the types of
measures that can be adjusted through these periodic adjustments, called framework actions.
• DAS leasing: Vessel operators are allowed to temporarily acquire DAS from other vessels through
a leasing program. The maximum number of DAS that can be leased is limited. Vessels can only be
leased to vessels of similar size (i.e. within the vessel upgrade restrictions for the permit).
• Special Access Programs (SAP): These programs relax regulatory restrictions in order to provide
opportunities for vessels to target healthy groundfish stocks. For most programs, there are stringent
requirements that include limits on catch of other species, additional reporting requirements, and gear
restrictions. The current SAPs are:
o Eastern US/CA Haddock SAP: Vessels using approved gear can fish for haddock in the
Eastern US/CA Area while using Category B or Category A DAS. Vessels are allowed to
fish in a small part of CAII. The SAP is open from August 1 through December 31. Vessels
report catch daily through VMS. Catches of stocks of concern are limited by TACs.
o CAI Hook Gear Haddock SAP: Longline vessels using specific bait (to reduce cod catches)
are allowed to target haddock inside part of CAI. The total catch of haddock is limited by a
TAC, as are the catches of stocks of concern. The area is open from October 1 through
December 31. The open season is divided between sector and non-sector vessels. Vessels
report catch daily through VMS.
o CAII Yellowtail Flounder SAP: Vessels are allowed to target yellowtail flounder inside the
southern part of CAII from July 1 through December 31. Vessels using trawl gear must use
a haddock separator trawl or a flounder net. There is a limit on the maximum number of
trips allowed each year, on the number of trips a vessel can make each month, and on the
amount of yellowtail flounder that can be caught each trip. There are limits on the catches
of stocks of concern and daily reporting via VMS. This SAP is only open when the TAC
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

Background and Purpose
Context of Existing Management System

for GB yellowtail flounder can support access to this area. This SAP has only been allowed
once (in 2004) because of the status of yellowtail flounder.
o SNE/MA Winter Flounder SAP: In order to reduce discards of winter flounder in the fluke
fishery, this SAP allows retention of up to 200 pounds of winter flounder while fishing
without using a DAS. The vessel must be fishing west of 72o 30’ W. longitude, must use
mesh allowed under the summer flounder regulations, and the amount of winter flounder
landed cannot exceed the amount of summer flounder landed.
• Category B (regular) DAS Program: This program allows vessels to use Category B (regular) DAS
to target healthy stocks. In general, there are fewer restrictions on this program than on SAPs. The
number of DAS that can be used each quarter is limited. Catches of stocks of concern are limited by
hard TACs. Trawl vessels must use a separator trawl or other approved gear. Daily catch reporting is
required.
• U.S./Canada Resource Sharing Understanding: The stock areas for GB yellowtail flounder, GB cod,
and GB haddock straddle the international boundary between the U.S. and Canada. In order to develop
a consistent management strategy for these stocks, Amendment 13 incorporated a process for the two
countries to agree on annual harvest levels. The agreement applies to the entire GB yellowtail flounder
stock area and part of the stock areas for cod and haddock. In order to implement the understanding, the
U.S. adopted a suite of management measures that apply to the relevant management units. These
include hard TACs on the catches, gear restrictions, and additional reporting requirements. The
Regional Administrator has broad authority to make in-season adjustments as necessary to achieve the
TACs.
Measures to Control Capacity
Amendment 13 adopted two measures intended to control capacity in the multispecies fishery. These two
measures are embedded in the management approach, and could be considered elements of the measures to
achieve rebuilding.
• DAS allocations: Amendment 13 categorized the DAS allocated to each vessel based on fishing
history during fishing years 1996 through 2001. The DAS allocated were also assigned to one of three
categories. Category A DAS can be used to fish for any groundfish stock under the requirements of the
FMP. Category B DAS can only be used to target healthy stocks. One sub-category (called Category B
(reserve) DAS) can only be used in approved SAPs. Category C DAS cannot be used at present but
remain assigned to the permit. This categorization of DAS is a critical element of the existing
management program.
• DAS Transfer Program: Vessel operators are allowed to make permanent transfers of DAS from
one permit to another, subject to a number of restrictions. DAS from one of the vessels involved in the
transfer are reduced by twenty percent (a “conservation tax” intended to reduce the number of DAS
available and to account for the possibility DAS will move to more efficient vessels). Transfers can
only be made between vessels of similar size. FW 42 adopted additional policy guidance designed to
clarify the DAS transfer reprocess.
Measure to Meet Rebuilding Mortality Targets
A primary management tool in the multispecies fishery is the control on the amount of days (days-at-sea, or
DAS) that fishing vessels can fish. Amendment 13 changed how the DAS assigned to a limited access
multispecies permit can be used. For each limited access permit, Amendment 13 evaluated the fishing
history of the permit during the period FY 1996 through FY 2001. For the years when the permitted vessel
landed at least 5,000 pounds of regulated groundfish, the number of DAS used during a qualifying fishing
year (not to exceed the permit’s FY 2001 allocation) was defined as the vessel’s “effective effort.” Sixty
percent of the permit’s effective effort was defined as Category A DAS, while the other forty percent was
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

Background and Purpose
Context of Existing Management System

defined as Category B DAS (evenly divided between Category B (regular) and Category B (reserve) DAS).
The difference between the permit’s effective effort and its 2001 allocation were then defined as Category
C DAS. Amendment 13 specified that unless certain conditions are met, the ratio of Category A to Category
B DAS for each permit would change to 45/55 on May 1, 2009.
FW 42 introduced a significant change to the DAS system: the counting of DAS at different rates in
different areas. DAS are counted at a 2:1 rate in a large area in the inshore Gulf of Maine (GOM) and
another area in Southern New England (SNE).
Amendment 13 established limitations on the different DAS categories. Category A DAS can be used to
target any groundfish stock, subject to the limitations of Amendment 13 (including landing limits, gear
requirements, closed areas, reporting requirements, etc.). Category B DAS can only be used in specific
programs that are designed to target healthy groundfish stocks. Category C DAS cannot be used at this
time, but may be made available at some time in the future. The number of DAS that can be used (whether
Category A or Category B) can affect the rebuilding programs. The management measures in Amendment
13 were designed to achieve the target fishing mortality rates, but were based on Category A DAS use only.
Programs that allow for the use of Category B DAS must be carefully designed so that they do not
unacceptably increase the risk that rebuilding fishing mortality targets will not be met (mortality will be too
high). A primary management measure used to prevent the use of Category B DAS from unacceptably
raising mortality rates are incidental catch TACs first adopted by FW 40A, and modified in FW 40B, FW
41, and FW 42. These incidental catch TACs would not be modified if the No Action alternative is adopted.
Amendment 13 adopted two programs that facilitate the exchange of DAS between limited access permit
holders. The DAS leasing program allows the temporary transfer of DAS from one permit to another. The
vessels exchanging DAS must have similar vessel lengths and horsepower. The DAS transfer program
allows for the permanent transfer of DAS between two vessels. For the transfer program, the two vessels
involved must have similar length, horsepower, gross, and net tonnage. Under the No Action alternative,
there would not be any changes to either of these programs.
Amendment 13 provided a mechanism for a group of fishermen to operate as a sector, and established the
GB Cod Hook Sector. FW 42 implemented an additional sector, the Fixed Gear Sector. Under the No
Action alternative, only these two sectors would be allowed to operate but without any changes, and there
wouldn’t be any changes to existing sector policies.
Numerous gear requirements have been adopted over the course of these actions. Current requirements are
listed in Table 11. There are numerous trip limits in effect as well; these are summarized below.
Trip limits: The following trip limits apply when not participating in SAPs, the Category B
(regular) DAS program, or when not altered by regulations for the U.S./Canada area.
GOM cod: 800 lbs./DAS up to 4,000 lbs./trip
GB cod: 1,000 lbs./DAS up to 10,000 lbs./trip
CC/GOM yellowtail flounder: 250 lbs./DAS up to 1,000 lbs./trip
SNE/MA yellowtail flounder: 250 lbs./DAS up to 1,000 lbs./trip
GB yellowtail flounder: 10,000 lbs./trip
GB winter flounder: 5,000 lbs./trip
White hake: 1,000 lbs./DAS up to 10,000 lbs./trip
Atlantic halibut: one fish per trip

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

Background and Purpose
Context of Existing Management System

Handgear A permit: 300 lbs./cod per trip
Handgear B Permit: 75 lbs./cod per trip
Existing regulations provide opportunities to target healthy groundfish stocks by establishing three SAPs
and one program to use Category B (regular) DAS. GB haddock can be targeted using longline gear through
the CAI Hook Gear Haddock SAP, and by vessels using trawl gear in the Eastern U.S./Canada Haddock
SAP Pilot Program (other gear could be approved for this SAP as well). Each of these programs controls
the catch of cod and haddock through a hard TAC supported by additional reporting and gear requirements.
The CAII Yellowtail Flounder SAP provides an opportunity to target GB yellowtail flounder in CAII when
that stock is healthy. The Category B (regular) DAS Pilot Program was adopted for one year to allow
vessels to target healthy stocks while using Category B (regular) DAS. For all of these programs, the catch
of stocks of concern is limited by hard TACs (referred to as “incidental catch TACs”) that are monitored
through additional reporting requirements. Under the No Action alternative, the Eastern U.S./CA Haddock
SAP Pilot Program would end in December, 2008. Incidental catch TACs would not be specified for FY
2010 and beyond, since they have only been specified through FY 2009.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

Background and Purpose
Context of Existing Management System

Table 11 – Gear requirements under the existing management system
GOM

SNE

Mid-Atl

MINIMUM MESH SIZE RESTRICTIONS FOR GILLNET GEAR
NE Multispecies
Day Gillnet Category*

Roundfish nets
6.5" (16.5 cm) mesh;
50-net allowance
Flatfish nets
6.5" (16.5 cm) mesh;
100-net allowance

NE Multispecies
Trip Gillnet Category*

All nets
6.5" (16.5 cm) mesh;
150-net allowance

Monkfish Vessels**

Roundfish nets
6.5" (16.5 cm) mesh;
75-net allowance
All nets
6.5" (16.5 cm)
mesh;
50-net
allowance

All nets
6.5" (16.5 cm)
mesh;
75-net
allowance

All nets
6.5" (16.5 cm)
mesh;
150-net
allowance

All nets
6.5" (16.5 cm)
mesh;
75-net
allowance

Flatfish nets
6.5" (16.5 cm) mesh;
75-net allowance

All gillnet gear
6.5" (16.5 cm) mesh;
75-net allowance

10" (25.4 cm) mesh/150-net allowance

MINIMUM MESH SIZE RESTRICTIONS FOR TRAWL GEAR
Codend only
mesh size*

6.5" (16.5 cm) diamond or square

Large Mesh Category
entire net

8.5" (21.59 cm) diamond or square

7.0" (17.8 cm)
diamond or
6.5" (16.5 cm)
square

6.5" (16.5 cm) diamond
or square

7.5" (19.0 cm) diamond
or 8.0" (20.3 cm)
square

MAXIUM NUMBER OF HOOKS AND SIZE RESTRICTIONS FOR HOOK-GEAR***
Limited access
multispecies vessels

2,000 hooks

3,600 hooks

2,000 hooks

4,500 hooks (Hookgear vessels only)

No less than 6" (15.2 cm) spacing allowed between
the fairlead rollers
12/0 circle hooks required for longline gear

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

N/A

Proposed Action
Updates to Status Determination Criteria, Formal Rebuilding Programs, and ABC Control Rules

4.0 Proposed Action
4.1

4.1.1

Updates to Status Determination Criteria, Formal Rebuilding
Programs, and ABC Control Rules
Revised Status Determination Criteria

The M-S Act requires that every fishery management plan specify “objective and measureable criteria for
identifying when the fishery to which the plan applies is overfished.” Guidance on this requirement
identifies two elements that must be specified: a maximum fishing mortality threshold (or reasonable proxy)
and a minimum stock size threshold. The M-S Act also requires that FMPs specify the maximum
sustainable yield and optimum yield for the fishery. Amendment 13 adopted status determination criteria
for regulated groundfish stocks. It also provided that these criteria would be reviewed in 2008. This
amendment adopts new status determination criteria.
In 2008, the Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) conducted assessments of all nineteen regulated
groundfish stocks. The results of those assessments included revisions to status determination criteria. This
action adopts the revised status determination criteria. This option does not revise the types of changes that
require Council action, as described in Amendment 13. It also does not change the definition of optimum
yield.
This action adopts the status determination criteria determined by GARM III (NEFSC 2008) and, in the
case of Atlantic wolffish, the DPWG (2009). The GARM III and DPWG reports include a full description
of the data and models used to determine the criteria. The parameters are described in Table 12. Numerical
estimates for these parameters are shown in Table 13. For the stocks that use an index-based method to
evaluate stock status (either AIM or other index-methods) the criteria is based on a moving average
calculated as described by the latest applicable benchmark assessment. For ocean pout and pollock, this is a
three-year, centered average as described in the first Reference Point Working Group (NEFSC 2002) unless
changed in a later assessment. For windowpane flounder stocks, the average is a three-year lagged average
unless changed in a later assessment. In all cases, the minimum biomass threshold – that is, the point that
determines when a stock is overfished – is one-half the BMSY shown in Table 13.
Note that in this option a fishing mortality target is not specified, a change from Amendment 9 (NEFMC
2008). Section 4.2.1 describes the process for setting Annual Catch Limits (ACLs). In effect, the fishing
mortality target is the mortality that results from the defined ACL.
This Proposed Action was Option 2 in the draft amendment document.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

Proposed Action
Updates to Status Determination Criteria, Formal Rebuilding Programs, and ABC Control Rules

Table 12 – Proposed action status determination criteria

Stock

GOM Cod
GB Cod
GB Haddock
GOM Haddock
GB Yellowtail Flounder
Cape Cod/GOM
Yellowtail Flounder
SNE/MA Yellowtail
flounder
American Plaice
Witch Flounder
Gulf of Maine Winter
Flounder
GB Winter Flounder
SNE/MA Winter
Flounder
Acadian Redfish
White Hake

Biomass Target
(SSBMSY or
proxy)
SSBMSY: SSB/R
(40%MSP)
SSBMSY: SSB/R
(40%MSP)
SSBMSY: SSB/R
(40%MSP)
SSBMSY: SSB/R
(40%MSP)
SSBMSY: SSB/R
(40%MSP)
SSBMSY: SSB/R
(40%MSP)
SSBMSY: SSB/R
(40%MSP)
SSBMSY: SSB/R
(40%MSP)
SSBMSY: SSB/R
(40%MSP)
SSBMSY: SSB/R
(40%MSP)
SSBMSY: SSB/R
(40%MSP)
SSBMSY: SSB/R
(40%MSP)
SSBMSY: SSB/R
(50%MSP)
SSBMSY: SSB/R
(40%MSP)

Minimum
Biomass
Threshold

Maximum Fishing
Mortality
Threshold
(FMSY or proxy)

½ Btarget

F40%MSP

½ Btarget

F40%MSP

½ Btarget

F40%MSP

½ Btarget

F40%MSP

½ Btarget

F40%MSP

½ Btarget

F40%MSP

½ Btarget

F40%MSP

½ Btarget

F40%MSP

½ Btarget

F40%MSP

½ Btarget

F40%MSP

½ Btarget

F40%MSP

½ Btarget

F40%MSP

½ Btarget

F50%MSP

½ Btarget

F40%MSP

External

½ Btarget

External

½ Btarget

External

½ Btarget

Ocean Pout

External

½ Btarget

Atlantic Halibut

Internal
SSBMSY: SSB/R
(40%MSP)

½ Btarget

Rel F at
replacement
Rel F at
replacement
Rel F at
replacement
Rel F at
replacement
F0.1

1/2 Btarget

F40% MSP

Pollock
Windowpane Flounder
(North)
Windowpane Flounder
(South)

Atlantic Wolffish

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

Proposed Action
Updates to Status Determination Criteria, Formal Rebuilding Programs, and ABC Control Rules

Table 13 - Numerical estimates of revised status determination criteria from GARM III assessment meetings
and the Data Poor Working Group

Species
Cod
Cod
Haddock (1)
Haddock
Yellowtail Flounder
Yellowtail Flounder
Yellowtail Flounder
American Plaice
Witch Flounder
Winter Flounder
Winter Flounder
Winter Flounder
Redfish
White Hake
Pollock
Windowpane
Flounder
Windowpane
Flounder
Ocean Pout
Atlantic Halibut

GB/GOM
GB/GOM

Model
VPA
VPA
VPA
VPA
VPA
VPA
VPA
VPA
VPA
VPA
VPA
VPA
ASAP
SCAA
AIM

Bmsy or proxy
(mt)
148,084
58,248
153,329
5,900
43,200
27,400
7,790
21,940
11,447
16,000
3,792
38,761
271,000
56,254
2.00 kg/tow

Fmsy or
proxy
0.25
0.24
0.35
0.43
0.25
0.25
0.24
0.19
0.20
0.26
0.28
0.25
0.04
0.13
5.66 c/i

MSY
(mt)
31,159
10,014
33,604
1,360
9,400
6,100
1,720
4,011
2,352
3,500
917
9,742
10,139
5,800
11,320

GOM/GB

AIM

1.40 kg/tow

0.50 c/i

700

SNE/MA

AIM
Index Method
Replacement Yield

0.34 kg/tow
4.94 kg/tow
49,000

1.47 c/i
0.76 c/i
0.07

SCALE

1747 – 2202 mt

< 0.35

500
3,754
3,500
278 –
311 mt

Stock
GB
GOM
GB
GOM
GB
SNE/MA
CC/GOM
GB/GOM
GB
GOM
SNE/MA

Atlantic Wolffish(2)

(1) GB haddock values for BMSY and MSY reflect corrected values reported in Dr. Nancy Thompson’s (Northeast
Fisheries Science Center) letter to the New England Fishery Management Council dated November 14, 2008. GARM
III reported BMSY as 158,873 mt (SSB) and MSY as 32,746 mt.
(2) Atlantic wolffish values are based on the revised Atlantic wolffish working paper prepared after the Data Poor
Working Group. Values in this document differ from those in the summary report of the review panel.

4.1.2 ABC Control Rules
Background: After adoption of the Sustainable Fishery Act amendments to the M-S Act in 1996, the
National Standard Guidelines (NSGs) suggested that management plans should include MSY control rules.
The control rules specified the fishing mortality rates used to manage the fishery. Amendment 9 (NEFMC
1998) adopted MSY control rules for the Northeast Multispecies FMP. These control rules were modified in
Amendment 13 (NEFMC 2003). When the M-S Act was reauthorized in 2006, additional requirements
were imposed for Councils to adopt Annual Catch Limits (ACLs) (see section 4.2.1 for additional details).
As part of this process, the Science and Statistical Committee (SSC) of the Council first specifies an
acceptable biological catch, or ABC. The ACL set by the Council cannot exceed the ABC established by
the SSC.
When Amendment 16 was initiated, the Council did not intend to modify the MSY control rules adopted by
Amendment 13. The draft Amendment 16 document assumed that the Amendment 13 control rules would

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

Proposed Action
Updates to Status Determination Criteria, Formal Rebuilding Programs, and ABC Control Rules

continue to guide the fishery management plan. The existing MSY control rules were incorporated into the
setting of ACLs.
Two events occurred during the development of the amendment that led the Council to reconsider this
decision. First, the NMFS published revised National Standard guidelines to implement the changes to the
M-S Act that were adopted when it was reauthorized in 2006 (see 50 CFR 600.310 published in 73 Federal
Register 32526). Published just before the Council approved the draft amendment document, the revised
guidelines outline the implementation of requirements to set ABCs and ACLs in all management plans. The
guidelines revise and expand the concept of control rules and suggest that management plans should adopt
ABC control rules. These are similar to the original MSY control rules, and it is feasible that the plan could
follow the new guidelines simply by renaming the Amendment 13 MSY control rules.
The second event was the SSC review of the plan for setting ABCs and ACLs. The draft amendment
proposed that ABCs would be based on the fishing mortality called for by the control rule or Frebuild (for
stocks in a formal rebuilding program). The ABC would also consider elements of scientific uncertainty.
The Council’s Plan Development Team (PDT) proposed an approach to evaluate these uncertainties and
presented it to the SSC in July 2008. The SSC agreed with the concept but suggested the PDT test the
approach by applying it to several stocks based on assessments completed in 2005. The results of this test
(reviewed by the SSC in May, 2009) indicated that the PDT’s approach would not have ended overfishing if
used for three stocks to set catch levels for 2005 through 2007. As summarized by the SSC, the PDT’s
review highlighted the following (Cadrin, pers. comm.):
1. Medium to long term probabilistic stock projections are highly uncertain,
2. Accurately estimating probabilities at the tails of probability distributions (either high or
low probabilities) is particularly difficult,
3. Even if projections are unbiased and probabilities are accurately estimated, some fish
stocks will not be rebuilt by the end of the rebuilding period.
4. The available data is inadequate to conduct probabilistic projections for some stocks.
As a result, the SSC recommended a simpler approach to take into account scientific uncertainty when
setting ABCs in the absence of better information that more accurately describes scientific uncertainty. To
quote the SSC recommendation: “The SSC concluded that in the absence of better information on what an
appropriate buffer should be between the OFL and the ABC, a relatively simple ABC and robust
specification could be applied to all groundfish stocks, in all stages of rebuilding or long-term maintenance
of optimum yield.” The SSC recommended modifying the control rules used in the fishery from those
adopted in Amendment 13. The Council accepted the SSC’s recommendation at its June, 2009 Council
meeting.
Action: The MSY control rules adopted by Amendment 13 are replaced by the ABC control rules listed
below. These ABC control rules will be used in the absence of better information that may allow a more
explicit determination of scientific uncertainty for a stock or stocks. If such information is available – that
is, if scientific uncertainty can be characterized in a more accurate fashion -- it can be used by the SSC to
determine ABCs. These ABC control rules can be modified in a future Council action (an amendment,
framework, or specification package):
a. ABC should be determined as the catch associated with 75% of FMSY.
b. If fishing at 75% of FMSY does not achieve the mandated rebuilding requirements for
overfished stocks, ABC should be determined as the catch associated with the fishing
mortality that meets rebuilding requirements (Frebuild).

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

Proposed Action
Updates to Status Determination Criteria, Formal Rebuilding Programs, and ABC Control Rules

c. For stocks that cannot rebuild to BMSY in the specified rebuilding period, even with no
fishing, the ABC should be based on incidental bycatch, including a reduction in bycatch
rate (i.e., the proportion of the stock caught as bycatch).
d. Interim ABCs should be determined for stocks with unknown status according to case-bycase recommendations from the SSC.

4.1.3 Revised mortality targets for formal rebuilding programs
Amendment 13 adopted formal rebuilding programs for overfished groundfish stocks. The amendment also
called for an evaluation of rebuilding progress and an adjustment in mortality targets to achieve rebuilding,
if necessary. Mortality targets are adjusted as necessary to meet the rebuilding dates and probability of
success adopted by Amendment 13 and Framework 42. This section assumes that there will not be any
changes in the rebuilding time period or probability of success used to determine the target fishing mortality
rates.
According to the GARM III assessments, the following stocks achieved their BMSY level (or its proxy) prior
to submission of this document, and this action acknowledges completion of the rebuilding programs in the
year shown:
•
•

4.1.3.1

GB haddock (2006)
GOM haddock (2000)

Revised Rebuilding Mortality Targets

After the assessments of all regulated groundfish stocks were completed in August 2008, an evaluation was
made as to whether adjustments to the rebuilding fishing mortality targets are necessary. For the draft
amendment, revised rebuilding fishing mortality targets were calculated based on estimates of stock status
in 2008, revisions to status determination criteria (if any), and the rebuilding timelines and probabilities of
success adopted by Amendment 13 and FW 42. These revised mortality targets are shown in Table 14. In
the case of GOM cod and American plaice, the rebuilding fishing mortality exceeded FMSY. Since fishing at
a higher level than FMSY constitutes overfishing, the mortality target for these stocks was shown as FMSY in
the draft amendment.
Subsequent to Council approval of the draft amendment, the Council adopted new ABC control rules
recommended by the SSC. A full description is provided in section 4.1.2. With the Council’s adoption of
the new ABC control rules, some of the mortality targets for this action were changed from those proposed
in the draft amendment. If Frebuild is higher than 75% of FMSY, the latter is used for the target. This
changed the mortality targets for GOM cod, plaice, witch flounder, GB haddock, GOM haddock, CC/GOM
yellowtail flounder, and redfish. Revised mortality targets guiding this management action are reflected in
Table 15.
It should be noted that in the case of overfished stocks these fishing mortality targets implement a particular
rebuilding strategy. The strategy consists of the time period for rebuilding and the probability of success
used to determine a rebuilding fishing mortality rate. When stock status is determined it can be compared to
the rebuilding program and the rebuilding fishing mortality can be recalculated. While this is normally done
every few years based on the assessment cycle and changes are included in a management action, if
assessments are available more frequently and a mechanism exists to implement a different fishing
mortality rate then the revised rate can be implemented without a management action. At present, this is a
possibility for GB yellowtail flounder since the stock is assessed every year through the TRAC and is
managed through a hard TAC. It may be possible in the future to use this approach for other stocks.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

Proposed Action
Updates to Status Determination Criteria, Formal Rebuilding Programs, and ABC Control Rules

SNE/MA Winter Flounder
Amendment 13 adopted a phased rebuilding strategy for this stock. The strategy called for an evaluation of
rebuilding progress in 2008 and an adjustment to the rebuilding fishing mortality target to achieve
rebuilding by 2014. The rebuilding target for SNE/MA winter flounder shown in Table 15 calls for a fishing
mortality of 0. The target fishing mortality shown in this table should be interpreted as “as close to 0 as
practicable.”
There have been changes in the scientific basis for the rebuilding plan since Amendment 13. The GARM III
assessment selected a different assessment model than that used in GARM I as the basis for the Amendment
13 rebuilding plan, though estimates of stock size and fishing mortality do not differ appreciably between
the two models. The target biomass for this stock increased from 30,100 mt in 2004 to 38,761 mt in this
action, a twenty-nine percent increase. Projections based on the GARM III assessment estimate that the
stock will not rebuild by 2014 even absent all fishing mortality, but would achieve the earlier rebuilding
target in 2014 with very low fishing mortality.
The M-S Act says that a rebuilding period should be as short as possible “…taking into account the needs
of fishing communities…” and not exceed ten years “…except in cases where the biology of the stock of
fish…dictate otherwise.” While the NSG advisory guidance is to interpret the reference to “biology of the
stock of fish” to refer only to the mean generation time of a stock and to only be considered when designing
a rebuilding program, there is no such language in the statute. Clearly, the biology of SNE/MA winter
flounder will not allow the stock to rebuild by the end of the rebuilding period even in the absence of
fishing mortality and the rebuilding period will need to be longer than ten years. This situation was reached
not just due to changes in the understanding of stock status but because fishing mortality exceeded the
rebuilding target from 2004 through 2008. Fishing mortality exceeded the target at least in part because the
actual recruitment observed for 2004 – 2008 was less than half that assumed when the Amendment 13
measures were designed (see NEFMC 2004; GARM III). This is beyond the control of managers or the
fishing industry.
The NSGs do not provide guidance on how management should react when it is determined that a
rebuilding plan cannot achieve its goal by the end of the rebuilding period. They do, however, provide
guidance if a stock is not rebuilt at the end of the period: the Council should continue to target the
rebuilding fishing mortality rate or a fishing mortality that is 75 percent of FMSY , whichever is lower. By
targeting a fishing mortality as close to zero as practicable, the Council is proposing a more precautionary
adjustment than would be allowed by the NSGs if 2009 was the end of the rebuilding period and the stock
was not yet rebuilt. The impacts on the length of the rebuilding period will be described in section 7.2.1.1.3.
Atlantic Halibut
Amendment 13 adopted a formal rebuilding program for Atlantic halibut. At the time, while the stock was
known to be overfished, assessment information was insufficient to calculate a fishing mortality rate for
rebuilding. In 2008 an analytic assessment was completed at GARM III. This enables the calculation of a
preliminary rebuilding period and fishing mortality rate. Since the stock cannot be rebuilt within ten years
in the absence of fishing mortality, the ending date of the rebuilding period is 2055 and a target fishing
mortality rate is shown below. This initial attempt to define the rebuilding period may be modified as the
assessment is improved in the future.
Additional Rebuilding Programs
In addition to these revisions to existing rebuilding programs based on the results of GARM III, the fall
2008 fall trawl survey, and a Data Poor Working Group meeting (DPWG 2009), additional formal
rebuilding programs are required for:

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

Proposed Action
Updates to Status Determination Criteria, Formal Rebuilding Programs, and ABC Control Rules

•
•
•
•
•

Witch flounder
Georges Bank winter flounder
Northern windowpane flounder
Pollock
Atlantic wolffish

For the new rebuilding strategies identified below, and consistent with M-S Act requirements to rebuild as
quickly as possible subject to various constraints, the Council is considering strategies that rebuild in less
time than the maximum allowed under the M-S Act and at a higher level of probability than required (the
minimum allowed is greater than a fifty percent probability). These choices will provide additional
flexibility should stock increases lag behind the planned rebuilding trajectory. Should rebuilding lag in the
future, the Council may adjust the rebuilding program by reducing fishing mortality to meet the strategy
targets, or by extending the rebuilding period, or by changing the probability of achieving the target in the
time period, or through any combination of these or other options that are consistent with the legal
requirements of the M-S Act. Any changes will be adopted either through a framework action, plan
amendment, or specifications package adjustment.
Witch Flounder
The Council is adopting the following rebuilding program for witch flounder:
Fishing mortality will target rebuilding of the stock with a 75 percent probability of success by
2017.
Georges Bank Winter Flounder
The Council is adopting the following rebuilding program for GB winter flounder:
Fishing mortality will target rebuilding of the stock with a 75 percent probability of success by
2017.
Northern Windowpane Flounder
The Council is adopting the following rebuilding program for Northern windowpane flounder:
The goal is to rebuild this stock by 2017. No probability is associated with this goal since it is an indexbased stock and the projection methodology is deterministic. In addition, the Council has not identified a
specific rebuilding mortality target because the GARM III panel concluded that given the high uncertainty
of index-based assessments, it was not appropriate to calculate F rebuild for this stock.
Pollock
GARM III reported that pollock was approaching an overfished condition. This transboundary stock is
currently assessed with an index-based assessment. The results of the 2008 fall trawl survey determined the
stock is overfished. A joint U.S./Canada assessment is being considered for 2010. This joint assessment
may adopt a different assessment model and may adopt a different stock definition. Until this assessment is
completed, the rebuilding plan for this stock is based on the index-based assessment and Pollock Rebuilding
Option 2: rebuild by 2017.
Completion of a new assessment in 2010 may result in a need to revisit this rebuilding plan if the
assessment model is revised and if the understanding of stock status changes.
Atlantic Wolffish
DPWG (2009) reported that Atlantic wolffish is overfished. The life history of this species is not well
understood and the assessment is uncertain (“There is considerable uncertainty in several life history traits
critical to the evaluation of BRPs and stock status, including M, maximum age, the maturity schedule and
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

Proposed Action
Updates to Status Determination Criteria, Formal Rebuilding Programs, and ABC Control Rules

fecundity. Current estimates of maturity patterns used in the model have not been adequately developed for
the northwest Atlantic coastal shelf ecosystem and for the Gulf of Maine region in particular.”). The DPWG
report included the following statement: “The Panel believed that stock projections would be unreliable and
should not be undertaken.” For these reasons it is not possible to estimate rebuilding time periods or
rebuilding fishing mortality rates. The DPWG panel also recommended that catches remain low because of
evidence of poor recruitment. For these reasons, the initial rebuilding plan for wolffish will focus on
reducing fishing mortality to the extent practicable without a defined rebuilding period or target fishing
mortality rate.
Other stocks
GOM Winter Flounder
The 2008 assessment of GOM winter flounder was not accepted. In the words of the review panel GARM
III):
“Given the problems encountered, the Panel agreed that none of the models put forth gave a
clear picture of the status of the resource. Further, the Panel noted that until these issues were
resolved, the proposed analysis could not be used to provide management advice nor stock
projections.
While the Panel was unable to determine the stock’s status relative to the BRPs, it agreed that
the current trend in the population was very troubling. The Panel generally agreed that it is
highly likely that biomass is below BMSY, and that there is a substantial probability that it is
below ½ BMSY. The Panel noted that other stocks in the area of this mixed fishery were also at
low levels.”
Given the conclusion of the panel, this stock is clearly in need of additional rebuilding but a formal
rebuilding program cannot be estimated. The area for this stock is similar to that for GOM cod, CC/GOM
yellowtail flounder, and part of the witch flounder stock area. Measures designed to reduce mortality on
those stocks are expected to reduce mortality on GOM winter flounder as well. While a specific rebuilding
plan cannot be determined at this time (and it is not clear that a formal rebuilding plan is actually required),
this stock will be closely monitored and a plan will be developed as more information becomes available
and if it is determined that the stock is overfished.
Rationale: Modifications to rebuilding plans are needed in order to make sure rebuilding programs consider
the best available science. Additional formal rebuilding plans are required to comply with M-S Act
requirements for those stocks recently determined to be overfished.
The rebuilding strategies proposed in this section do not invoke the NSG provision referred to as the
“mixed stock exception.” 50 CFR 600.310(m) (published in 73 Federal Register 32526) provides guidance
for limited exceptions to the requirement to end overfishing immediately. A key element of the guidance is
that “The Council may decide to allow this type of overfishing if the fishery is not overfished…”
(emphasis added). According to GARM III, the DPWG, and other scientific information used to prepare
this document, fourteen of the twenty groundfish stocks are overfished and based on the language of the
NSGs the mixed stock exception cannot be applied to those stocks. Of the remaining six stocks, only two
are subject to overfishing: GOM cod and southern windowpane flounder. Both stocks are still in rebuilding
plans adopted by Amendment 13. In the case of GOM cod, the fishing mortality that will achieve the
rebuilding target is slightly higher than FMSY but the Council is choosing to end overfishing immediately as
required by the M-S Act. In the case of SNE/MA windowpane flounder, a specific rebuilding mortality
cannot be calculated.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

Proposed Action
Updates to Status Determination Criteria, Formal Rebuilding Programs, and ABC Control Rules
Table 14 – Option 2 – draft Amendment 16 revised rebuilding fishing mortality rates based on current stock status.
Boldfaced italics identify phased reduction strategies; other rebuilding programs use the adaptive strategy.
SPECIES
STOCK Rebuilt Year /
Fishing mortality rates for adopted rebuilding programs in year:
Probability of
Success
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
0.184
0.184
0.184
0.184
0.184
0.184
0.184
0.184
2026/50%
Cod
GB
0.184
0.184
0.185
0.184
0.184
0.184
0.184
0.184
(add ten years)
GOM
2014/50%
0.237
0.237
0.237
0.237
0.237
0.237
0.237
0.237
0.237
GB
2014/50%
Haddock
No formal rebuilding program require
GOM
2014/50%
No formal rebuilding program required
GB
2014/75%
0.109
0.109
0.109
0.109
0.109
Yellowtail Flounder
0.072
0.072
0.072
0.072
2014/50%
SNE/MA
0.072
2023/50%
CC/GOM
0.238
0.238
0.238
0.238
0.238
0.238
0.238
0.238
0.238
(add ten years)

0.238

American Plaice

2014/50%

0.190

Witch Flounder

2017/75%

0.162

2017/75%

0.205

Winter Flounder

GB
GOM

Redfish

2051/50%

.038

White Hake

2014/50%

0.084

2020

4.838

2017

4.564

Pollock
Windowpane
Flounder

North
South

Ocean Pout
Atlantic Halibut

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

0.237

0.238

Unable to determine stock status; cannot calculate a rebuilding mortality if overfished
2014/50%

SNE/MA

2018
0.184

.038

4.838

4.564

Unable to calculate rebuilding mortality
2014/50%

Unable to calculate rebuilding mortality

2014/50%
2056/50%

Unable to calculate rebuilding mortality
0.044 through 2055

Proposed Action
Updates to Status Determination Criteria, Formal Rebuilding Programs, and ABC Control Rules
Table 15 – Final Amendment 16 revised rebuilding fishing mortality rates based on current stock status and revised ABC control rules.
Boldfaced italics identify phased reduction strategies; other rebuilding programs use the adaptive strategy.
SPECIES
STOCK Rebuilt Year /
Fishing mortality rates for adopted rebuilding programs in year:
Probability of
Success
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
0.184
0.184
0.184
0.184
0.184
0.184
0.184
0.184
2026/50%
Cod
GB
0.184
0.184
0.185
0.184
0.184
0.184
0.184
0.184
(add ten years)
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
GOM
2014/50%
0.18
GB
2014/50%
Haddock
75% FMSY: 0.26
GOM
2014/50%
75% FMSY: 0.32
GB
2014/75%
0.109
0.109
0.109
0.109
0.109
Yellowtail Flounder
2014/50%
SNE/MA
0.072
0.072
0.072
0.072
0.072
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
2023/50%
CC/GOM
0.18
(add ten years)

0.18

American Plaice

2014/50%

0.14

Witch Flounder

2017/75%

0.15

2017/75%

0.20

Winter Flounder

GB
GOM

2018
0.184
0.18

0.18

Unable to determine stock status; cannot calculate a rebuilding mortality if overfished
2014/50%

Redfish

2051/50%

.03

White Hake

2014/50%

0.084

2017

4.245

SNE/MA

Pollock
Windowpane
Flounder

North

2017

South

2014/50%

Unable to calculate rebuilding mortality; 75% of MFSY

2014/50%
2056/50%

Unable to calculate rebuilding mortality; 75% of MFSY
0.044 through 2055

Ocean Pout
Atlantic Halibut

Unable to calculate rebuilding mortality; 75% of MFSY

Atlantic wolfish

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

Unable to calculate rebuilding mortality; 75% of MFSY

Proposed Action
Updates to Status Determination Criteria, Formal Rebuilding Programs, and ABC Control Rules

4.1.3.2

Mortality Reductions to Achieve Rebuilding Targets

Management measures in this action are designed to reduce fishing mortality to the targeted fishing
mortality for each stock as shown in Table 15. The Council’s approach to determine the needed mortality
reductions for Amendment 16 is similar to that used for FW 42. Catch in 2008 was estimated using six
months of preliminary landings statistics provided by NERO (a full year of data was used for pollock and
GB winter flounder), the ratio of discards to landings in 2007 from the GARM, Canadian quotas for GB
cod, haddock, and yellowtail flounder, 2008 Canadian catch for pollock, and 2007 recreational catches for
GB cod, GOM cod, GOM haddock, pollock, SNE/MA winter flounder, and GB winter flounder. Estimates
were not made for the four stocks with very low landings because such estimates are unreliable. Using the
estimated catch, fishing mortality in 2008 is estimated and the measures are designed to reduce mortality
from the 2008 estimate to the Amendment 16 target. While the method used to estimate 2008 catch has
performed adequately in the past, it is not without uncertainty. Changes in discard rates, recreational
catch, and commercial fishing patterns could result in actual catches that differ from these estimates. Table
16 summarizes the mortality reductions believed necessary to achieve the desired fishing mortality rates.
The derivation of these values is explained in section 7.2.1.1.3.2.
Projections for SNE/MA winter flounder indicate that it is unlikely to rebuild by 2014 in the absence of any
fishing mortality, and so Table 15 indicates that fishing mortality must be completely eliminated. Since this
stock is caught as bycatch in other large mesh fisheries, small-mesh fisheries, and the scallop dredge
fishery, the only way to do this is to eliminate all fishing activity in the SNE/MA winter flounder stock
area. This would entail closing the fluke, black sea bass, scup, scallop, herring, mackerel, monkfish, and
other fisheries from off Cape Cod to the Maryland coast. Hundreds of millions of dollars in yield would be
sacrificed for a relatively small change in the projected rebuilding period for a stock that at MSY will
produce less than 10,000 mt of yield. This is viewed as unnecessarily draconian and impracticable, since
even without any fishing mortality this stock would not be rebuilt within the Amendment 13 timelines (i.e.,
by 2014) and is projected to be rebuilt between fishing years 2015 and 2016. In addition, there is
considerable fishing on this stock within state waters, beyond the jurisdiction of these management
measures. Further, with the implementation of management measures proposed under Amendment 16, this
stock will no longer be subject to overfishing. Therefore, to impose such measures and still not achieve the
objectives of rebuilding this stock by 2014 is contrary to the objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and
would subject groundfish vessels to severe economic impacts without sufficient benefits. For these reasons,
this action is designed to eliminate targeting of this stock and, reduce discards in other trawl fisheries in
order to reduce fishing mortality to the extent practicable.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

Proposed Action
Updates to Status Determination Criteria, Formal Rebuilding Programs, and ABC Control Rules

Table 16 – Summary of rebuilding reductions needed to achieve desired fishing mortality.
Targeted
2008 F
Fishing
2007
from 2008
Mortality
Fmsy
Species
Stock
Fishing
(either Frebuild
Estimated
Mortality
or 75% of
Catch
FMSY )
0.300
0.184
0.2466
0.410
Cod
GB

% Change in
F necessary
to achieve
targeted
mortality
-55%

Cod

GOM

0.456

0.18

0.237

0.300

-40%

Haddock

0.230

0.26

0.350

0.079

229%

Haddock

GOM

0.350

0.32

0.430

0.250

28%

Yellowtail Flounder

0.289

0.109

0.254

0.130

-16%

Yellowtail Flounder

SNE/MA

0.413

0.072

0.254

0.120

-40%

Yellowtail Flounder

CC/GOM

0.414

0.18

0.239

0.289

-38%

American Plaice

GB/GOM

0.090

0.14

0.190

0.099

41%

0.290

0.15

0.200

0.296

-49%

Witch Flounder
Winter Flounder

0.280

0.20

0.260

0.131

Winter Flounder

GOM

0.417

N/A4

0.283

0.317

49%
n/a

Winter Flounder

SNE/MA

0.649

0.000

0.248

0.265

-100%

0.005

0.03

0.038

0.008

275%

Redfish
White Hake

GB/GOM

0.150

0.084

0.125

0.065

29%

Pollock

GB/GOM

10.464

4.245

5.66

15.516

Windowpane

GOM/GB

1.960

n/a

0.50

n/a

-73%
n/a

Windowpane

SNE/MA

1.850

n/a

1.47

n/a

Ocean Pout

0.380

n/a

0.760

n/a

Atlantic Halibut

0.065

0.044

0.073

0.060

-27%

Atlantic Wolffish

Unk

n/a

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

Proposed Action
Fishery Program Administration

4.2

Fishery Program Administration

4.2.1 Annual Catch Limits
While this action will specify the process for Annual Catch Limits (ACLs), they will be implemented as
required by the M-S Act (FY 2010 or 2011 based on whether a stock is subject to overfishing or not).
Revisions to the M-S Act in 2006 require that fishery management councils “develop annual catch limits for
each of its managed fisheries that may not exceed the fishing level recommendations of its scientific and
statistical committee or the peer review process…” This option implements that requirement for the
Northeast Multispecies FMP.
There are several steps that must be specified to set ACLs. In some cases, the M-S Act requires certain
steps to be performed by specific entities (generally either the Council or the Science and Statistical
Committee (SSC)). These requirements will be discussed in more detail later in this section.
•
•
•
•
•
•

Appropriate fishing mortality references must be identified.
Current stock size must be estimated.
Available catches must be estimated for the appropriate fishing mortality references at current,
or projected, stock sizes, taking into account biological and management uncertainty and risk.
For some data-poor stocks, available catch may have to be determined without benefit of
fishing mortality estimates or targets, or stock size estimates.
Available catch will need to be allocated to different components of the fishery
(sectors/common pool vessels, commercial/recreational), or to other fisheries (Scallop dredge,
midwater trawl, etc.).
Council decisions will need to be reviewed, discussed, and published.

This section will describe the process for all of these steps. This action adopts Option 2 from the draft
amendment.

4.2.1.1

Definitions

The following definitions define terms used in this section. Table 17 summarizes this information.
OFL: Overfishing level. The catch that results from applying the fishing mortality rate that defines
overfishing to a current or projected estimate of stock size. This is usually FMSY or its proxy. Catches that
exceed this amount would be expected to result in overfishing.
ABC: Acceptable biological catch. The maximum catch that is recommended for harvest, consistent with
meeting the biological objectives of the management plan. ABC can never exceed the OFL. ABC will be
based on Fcontrol rule for stocks that are not in a rebuilding program, and will be based on the rebuilding
fishing mortality (Freb) rate for stocks that are in a rebuilding program. The determination of ABC will
consider scientific uncertainty.
ACL: Annual catch limit. The catch level selected such that the risk of exceeding the ABC is consistent
with the management program. ACL can be equal to but can never exceed the ABC. ACL should be set
lower than the ABC when necessary due to uncertainty over the effectiveness of management measures.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

Proposed Action
Fishery Program Administration

The ACL serves as the level of catch that determines whether accountability measures (AMs) are
implemented.
Table 17 – Overview of definitions used in ACL process
Acronym
Definition

Considerations

OFL

Catch at FMSY

Point estimates of FMSY , stock size

ABC

Catch at FABC control rule or Frebuild

ACL

<=ABC

Scientific uncertainty over current stock size,
estimate of F, or other parameters (growth,
recruitment, selectivity, etc.)
Uncertainty from other sources, evaluation of risk
to achieving management goals if ABC is exceeded

4.2.1.2

Administrative Process for Setting Multispecies ACLs

This section delineates the administrative steps for setting ACLs for multispecies stocks. The ACL process
will become an element of the existing periodic adjustment process. The biennial adjustment process
requires the PDT to prepare a SAFE report every year. Every two years, the PDT evaluates whether
management measures need to be revised in order to meet mortality objectives. The PDT will review
available data, including information on catch (landings and discards), DAS and other measures of fishing
effort, estimates and forecasts from recent assessments about stock status and fishing mortality rates,
enforcement and compliance with measures, and any other relevant information, such as trawl survey
indices or other data. The PDT is required to submit suggested measures to the Council by September 1 if
revisions are necessary. The Council will then consider adjustments over the course of two Council
meetings. The first meeting, in September will be the first framework meeting for any revisions. The second
framework meeting will take place in either October or November. An exception to this process will be
made for the U.S./CA Resource Sharing Understanding, which determines TACs on an annual basis.
The PDT will develop recommendations for Acceptable Biological Catch (ABC) for each multispecies
stock based on the definitions in Table 17. These recommendations form the basis for setting ACLs. The
PDT recommendations will include the following elements:
•
OFL estimates for the next three fishing years, based on the point estimates of FMSY (or its
proxy) and the point estimate of future stock size. While it is expected that OFLs will be
determined every two years, the PDT will recommend them for three years in case of a delay in
determining future values.
•
As part of the biennial adjustment process, the PDT should evaluate whether rebuilding is
proceeding as planned and whether adjustments are necessary to fishing mortality targets in order to
maintain rebuilding trajectories.
•
ABC recommendations for the next three fishing years, based on either Fcontrol rule (stocks
not in a rebuilding program) or Freb (stocks in a rebuilding program). The PDT recommendation
should report the catch that results from the point estimates of the target fishing mortality rate and
projected stock size. If the PDT recommends reducing the ABC from this amount, the
recommendation should include an explicit discussion of the biological uncertainties that are taken
into account in developing the recommendation. In order to evaluate these uncertainties, with the
guidance of the SSC the PDT will develop an informal document that describes the issues that will
be considered. This information will be provided for the consideration of the SSC and the Council
and is not intended to be binding on either body. For some stocks, information may not be available
to estimate fishing mortality or stock size; the PDT will develop a recommendation for those stocks

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

Proposed Action
Fishery Program Administration

using any available data. While it is expected that ABCs will be determined every two years, the
PDT will recommend them for three years in case of a delay in implementation.
•
An evaluation whether the ABC’s have been exceeded in earlier years.
The PDT will also develop a recommendation to the Council for setting ACLs. Similar to the setting of
ACLs, the PDT will consider management uncertainty when developing this recommendation. In order to
evaluate these uncertainties, the PDT will develop an informal document that describes the issues that will
be considered. The Council may ask the SSC to comment on the PDT recommendations. Should the SSC
recommend an ABC that differs from that originally recommend by the PDT, the PDT will revise its ACL
recommendations if necessary to be consistent. The PDT’s ACL recommendations will include:
•
•

•

A summary indicating whether ACLs have been exceeded in recent years.
A recommendation for setting ACLs for the next three years. The PDT will describe the
uncertainties and risks considered when developing these recommendations. While it is
expected that ACLs will be determined every two years, the PDT will recommend them for
three years in case of a delay in implementation.
When evaluating management uncertainty, the PDT will consider that uncertainty may be
different for different sub-components of the ACL. For example, groundfish sectors may have
more or less uncertainty than the recreational groundfish fishery; as a result, the ACL may be
set lower or higher for this component. The PDT recommendation will specifically comment on
the evaluation of the uncertainty for different sub-components.

The PDT recommendations for setting ABCs and ACLs will be provided to the SSC prior to the September
Council meeting. Guided by terms of reference prepared by the Council, the SSC will review the PDT ABC
recommendations and will either approve those recommendations or will provide an alternative
recommendation. In either case, the SSC will explicitly describe the elements of scientific uncertainty that
were considered in developing its recommendation. If requested by the Council, the SSC may comment on
the uncertainty and risk that should be considered by the Council when setting ACLs and whether the PDT
has identified those elements sufficiently for Council consideration. If the SSC recommends an ABC that
differs from the PDT recommendation, the PDT will revise its ACL recommendations using the new ABCs.
This process will be modified for those stocks or management units that are subject to the U.S./Canada
Resource Sharing Understanding. Assessments of these stocks or management units that are prepared by the
Transboundary Resource Assessment Committee (TRAC), a peer-review process as envisioned by the M-S
Act. For these stocks, the Transboundary Management Guidance Committee (TMGC) develops
recommended catch levels on an annual basis. TACs are recommended for GB yellowtail flounder, eastern
GB cod, and Eastern GB haddock. These are essentially ACLs as they take into account various types of
uncertainty and risk but they cannot be characterized as ABCs. The new M-S Act requirements have the
most implications for GB yellowtail flounder since this catch limit applies to the entire stock, whereas the
TMGC only makes recommendations for part of the GB cod and haddock stocks. As a result the
recommendations will be reviewed by the SSC to verify that they are consistent with the SSC
recommendations for ABCs.
The Council will consider the ABC established by the SSC and the ACL recommendations of the PDT (and
TMGC) and will make a decision on those recommendations prior to December 1. If the Council questions
the SSC recommendation, it can ask for a more detailed explanation from the SSC, but the Council must
establish ACLs that are equal to or lower than the ABC established by the SSC. When setting ACLs, the
Council will consider the advice of the SSC and the PDT and will provide the rationale used for setting the
ACLs.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

Proposed Action
Fishery Program Administration

Once the Council has approved ACLs, they will be submitted to NMFS prior to December 1 for approval
and implementation. ACLs can be implemented in several ways. If the Council is submitting a management
action as part of the periodic adjustment process, the ACLs can be included in that document. Alternatively,
the ACLs can be submitted as part of a specification package supported by the appropriate NEPA
document. It should be noted that in many instances ACLs merely reflect the catch associated with the
mortality targets determined by the management plan and therefore the impacts are consistent with those
evaluated when the mortality targets were adopted. For this reason, in those instances that an ACL is not
revised, it is anticipated that there will not be a need for a new supporting NEPA document.
After receipt of the Council decision for ACLs – either as part of a new management action or as part of a
specification package – NMFS will review the Council’s decision and if consistent with applicable law will
implement the ACL consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

4.2.1.3

ACL Sub-Components

Before ACLs are determined, an adjustment will be made for the catch that is expected to be harvested
within state waters by vessels that are not subject to the federal FMP. Calculations for ACLs will be
described in the specifications package or management action adopting the ACLs, and its accompanying
PDT guidance document. Once an overall ABC determined, the Council may divide it into ACL subcomponents. These sub-components will facilitate management of the catch of a stock so that if catches are
excessive measures can be designed for the portions of the fishery that are responsible for the excessive
catch. In this context the term “sub-component” is used in two senses. First, to indicate that the overall ACL
may be divided into smaller portions that is attributed to specific fisheries. These are considered “subACLs” and are subject to AMs designed for these specific components. Second, there may also be subcomponents that are not considered ACLs and are not subject to a specific AM.
There are two broad divisions that will be considered. The overall available catch is considered an ACL. It
may be divided into sub-ACLs for specific fisheries or other sub-components. In the case of the sub-ACLs,
AMs are required for these divisions. These AMs can be specified in either an action for the multispecies
fishery or an, action in another management plan. Second, part of the available catch may be divided into
sub-components that are not referred to as sub-ACLs and are not subject to the requirement that AMs be
specified. In some instances – for example, state waters fisheries – these sub-components are outside the
Council’s jurisdiction but must still be considered when developing management plans. It is important to
note that the controls on the portion of the fishery that is subject to AMs must be sufficient to prevent
overfishing on the stock as a whole. The sub-components that are identified, and whether they are ACLs or
not, and appropriate AMs, can be revised through the framework adjustment process or an amendment.
The distribution of the other sub-components and sub-ACLs is based on an analysis of available data by the
Groundfish PDT. The Groundfish PDT analyzes the data to identify the components that are responsible for
the catch and provides this information to the Council. The analyses that support this action are described in
more detail in section 7.2.1.2.1; but the specification package implementing ACLs will further describe the
calculations and may differ from the process described here. The Council then determines how to allocate
the catch to the components. As these components can change over time, the exact amount available for a
sub-component or sub-ACL may be revised through the specification process, a framework adjustment, or
an amendment. In the case of a recreational sub-ACL, this action adopts a specific sub-ACL for only two
stocks (GOM cod and GOM haddock), but the Council may establish sub-ACLs for future stocks consistent
with section 4.2.5.
For those sub-components that are not ACLs, there are broad categories. This category does not include
catches in state waters taken outside the federal management plan (as these are accounted for prior to this
step) and does not include regulated groundfish landed by vessels using a federal groundfish permit. First,
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

Proposed Action
Fishery Program Administration

small amounts of regulated groundfish are caught in a variety of fisheries that occur in federal waters (for
example, the fluke fishery, the northern shrimp fishery, etc.). Generally these fisheries are not allowed to
land regulated groundfish, though this may change in the future as stocks rebuild. Where individually these
elements are too small to reliably monitor, they are aggregated into an “Other non-specified” category.
Second, some fisheries are specifically identified. For the category described as “other non-specified”,
catches will be monitored and if the catch rises above five percent accountability measures will be
developed to prevent the overall ACL from being exceeded.
The proposed sub-components that will be adopted at the implementation of this amendment are shown in
Table 18. In the case of transboundary stocks subject to the U.S./Canada Resources Sharing Understanding,
this table is based on the catch available to U.S. fishermen. Where possible, the percentage of the subcomponent that will be allocated to specific fisheries is shown. For some stocks this value cannot be
determined in advance because they will be determined by Council future decisions on the scallop fishery
ACL as explained below. The specific sub-components, and percentage assigned to each sub-component,
may be changed through the specifications process or another management action (framework or
amendment). Note that for the mid-water trawl ACL of haddock, the measure as implemented combines the
amount from both stocks into one amount – it is not monitored on a stock-specific basis.
For the scallop fishery, all three stocks of yellowtail flounder will be initially treated as an “other subcomponent” of the ACL. Scallop Amendment 15 will identify AMs for the catch of yellowtail flounder in
the scallop fishery. Once these AMs are specified, yellowtail flounder caught in the scallop fishery will be
considered a sub-ACL controlled by an AM. It is expected that the first groundfish fishing year that this
will occur is FY 2011, after implementation of Scallop Amendment 15 in March, 2011. If scallop
Amendment 15 adopts an in-season AM, then these AMs might be triggered in groundfish fishing year
2011; if in-season AMs are not adopted, then any overage of the FY 2011 ACL would be addressed by
AMs implemented in scallop FY 2012. The specific value for a scallop fishery ACL is not specified
because this will be determined as part of the biennial adjustment process. Catches of regulated groundfish
in the scallop fisheries depend on a wide range of factors: scallop and groundfish abundance, the scallop
rotational management program, etc. These factors are variable and cannot be predicted in this action. The
amount of yellowtail flounder allowed for the scallop dredge fishery will, at a minimum, be consistent with
the incidental catch amounts for the Closed Area access programs (ten percent of the GB yellowtail
flounder and/or SNE/MA yellowtail flounder ACL when CAI, CAII, or the NLCA access programs are in
effect).

4.2.1.4

Impacts of an ACL Overage

ACLs will be set every two years. If an ACL is exceeded in year one, the amount of the overage could be
evaluated to determine if the ACL in year two should be adjusted in order to prevent overfishing. This is a
separate issue from whether the management system requires a sub-component to account for an overage,
as is the case with sectors. This is not as simple as it first appears. If there is only one component of the
fishery, and the ACL is set exactly at ABC, an overage in year one would be expected to reduce stock size
such that the ABC/ACL in year two should be adjusted to account for the lower stock size. But with more
than one sub-component, and if ACLs are set lower than ABC, it is possible that an overage by one
component and not the others may not lead to a depressed stock size that requires adjusting ACLs. In
addition, the ACL setting approach under development by the PDT would likely set out-year ACLs at a
lower level to account for the increased uncertainty of future catches. Simplistic “payback” provisions –
reducing the ACL in year two by an overage in year one – may not be sufficient if stock size is expected to
decline, and may unnecessarily sacrifice yield if a stock is growing. Finally, the time needed to evaluate and
implement an adjustment to the ACL means it is unlikely to implemented in time to be effective in year
two.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

Proposed Action
Fishery Program Administration

The Council may adjust sub-component ACLs so that, to the extent practicable, components not responsible
for the overage are not subject to reductions in their ACL and resultant changes in fishing opportunities.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

Proposed Action
Fishery Program Administration

Table 18 – ACLs and sub-components for groundfish stocks. Scallop values to be determined during biennial adjustment process and other values for
those stocks will be adjusted accordingly.
Notes: (1) Includes all catches by vessels using a federal groundfish permit, except for scallop vessels.
(2) These values will be estimated each time ACLs are set and may change as a result.
ACL
Other SubComponent
Other SubUntil AM
Stock
Sub-ACLs/Controlled by AM
Components
State
Adopted
(2)
Waters(2)
through Scallop
FMP
Commercial
Groundfish Groundfish
Rec
Other Non(1)
(1)
Scallops(2)
Groundfish
Herring MWT
Specified
GB Cod
95% - Y
5.0%
Y
Y
GB Haddock
94.8% - Y
0.2%
5.0%
GB YTF
95.0% - X
X
5.0%
Y
SNE/MA YTF
95.0% - X -Y
X
5.0%
Y
CC/GOM YTF
95.0% - X -Y
X
5.0%
GOM Cod
85%
51.3%
33.7%
5.0%
10.0%
Y
Witch
95.0% - Y
5.0%
Y
Plaice
95.0% - Y
5.0%
95.0% - Y
Y
GOM WFL
5.0%
95.0% - Y
Y
SNE/MA WFL
5.0%
GB WFL
95.0%
5.0%
Y
White Hake
95.0% - Y
5.0%
Y
Pollock
95.0% - Y
5.0%
Y
Redfish
95.0% - Y
5.0%
Y
Pout
95.0% - Y
5.0%
Y
GOM/GB Windowpane
70.0% - Y
30.0%
Y
SNE/MA Windowpane
70.0% - Y
30.0%
Y
GOM Haddock
67.3% - Y
67.3% - Y
27.5%
0.2%
5.0%
Y
Halibut
95.0% - Y
5.0%
Y
Atlantic Wolffish
95.0% - Y
5.0%

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

Proposed Action
Fishery Program Administration

4.2.2 Addition of Atlantic Wolffish to the Management Unit
This action adopts Option from the draft amendment. The stock of Atlantic wolffish (Anarhichas
lupus) is added to the management unit for the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan.
Status determination criteria are proposed in section 4.1.1. Essential fish habitat for this stock is
proposed in section 4.2.2.2.2. Proposed management measures are in section 4.3.5. A description
of the stock and stock status are provided in section 6.1.7.1.
Rationale: Atlantic wolffish is a demersal species that prefers complex habitat. They are
occasionally caught by recreational and commercial groundfish fishermen, particularly in the
Gulf of Maine and on Georges Bank. As described in section 6.1.7.1, this stock has declined in
abundance since the mid-1980’s and has not shown signs of recovery in spite of recent reductions
in fishing effort. The stock was recently determined to be overfished (DPWG 2009). It is
uncertain, however, whether fishing is the cause for this failure to rebuild. In order to adopt
management measures that are specifically designed for this stock, it must be incorporated into
the management unit.

4.2.2.1

Status Determination Criteria

Proposed status determination criteria for Atlantic wolffish were determined in the Data Poor
Working Group Meeting (NEFSC 2009). They are included in Table 12 and Table 13.

4.2.2.2

Essential Fish Habitat

4.2.2.2.1 Introduction
The 1996 amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act,
known as the Sustainable Fisheries Act (SFA), emphasized the importance of habitat protection to
healthy fisheries and strengthened the ability of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
and the Councils to protect and conserve the habitat of marine, estuarine, and anadromous finfish,
mollusks, and crustaceans. This habitat is termed "essential fish habitat" (EFH) and is broadly
defined to include "those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding,
or growth to maturity".
The essential fish habitat (EFH) provisions of the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 require the
Council to:
1. describe and identify the essential habitat for the species managed by the Council;
2. minimize to the extent practicable adverse effects on EFH caused by fishing; and,
3. identify other actions to encourage the conservation and enhancement of EFH.
As to the first provision above, the regulatory text of the Final Rule on the essential fish habitat
provisions in the SFA (67 FR 2343) directs Councils to describe EFH for each species in text.
This text must provide information on the biological requirements for each life history stage of
the species (eggs, larvae, juveniles, and adults), and should include physical as well as
oceanographic parameters. Specifically, the text descriptions include the general geographic
area(s) preferred by the species, the preferred substrate (if demersal), and the ideal ranges of
water temperature, depth, and salinity (where known). The descriptions should reflect the best

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

Proposed Action
Fishery Program Administration

available information on the species' habitat requirements collected from the scientific literature
and observations made during research surveys.
The regulatory text of the Final Rule also directs Councils to map the general distribution and
geographic limits of EFH for each life history stage. These maps are presented as fixed in space
and time, but they encompass all appropriate known temporal and spatial variability in the
distribution of EFH. The EFH maps are a means to visually present the EFH described in the
amendment.
To summarize, there are two distinct but related components required to comply with the
guidelines of the Final Rule. For each species and life stage:
1. text description of essential fish habitat; and
2. maps indicating the geographic extent of essential fish habitat.
The intent of the two-part EFH designation is for the map to indicate the geographical extent
within which the text description applies. The text descriptions of essential fish habitat define the
environmental parameters within the areas represented by the map designations.
NMFS regulations within the Final Rule require that the text description take precedence when
the text and EFH maps differ. For example, if the map indicates that eastern Georges Bank is
EFH for a particular species and the text description indicates that sandy habitats within a depth
range of 50 – 100 meters is EFH, then only those portions of eastern Georges Bank that are sandy
and have a depth between 50-100 m would actually be considered EFH.
The New England Fishery Management Council designated essential fish habitat for each species
it manages in the 1998 Essential Fish Habitat Omnibus Amendment (Amendment 11 to the
Multispecies FMP). Amendment 12 (2000) added offshore hake to the Multispecies FMP and
designated EFH for the species. Among other measures, Amendment 16 to the Multispecies FMP
adds Atlantic wolffish to the management unit and designates EFH for the species.

4.2.2.2.2 EFH Designation for Atlantic Wolffish
This action adopts Option 2 from the draft amendment. The Proposed Action designates all
waters north of 41° N latitude and, for waters south of the southern New England coastline, east
of 71° W longitude, from the shoreline to the boundary of the EEZ, as Atlantic wolffish EFH.
This alternative represents a broad EFH designation, and thus would contain any habitats
important to Atlantic wolffish for feeding, breeding, spawning, and growth to maturity.
Text descriptions
Eggs
Essential fish habitat for wolffish eggs is described as bottom habitats of the continental shelf and
slope within the Gulf of Maine south to Cape Cod, and on Georges Bank between 40 and 240
meters. In the Gulf of Maine, spawning is thought to occur during September and October, and
there is a 3-9 month incubation period prior to hatching; thus wolffish eggs are assumed to be
present throughout most of the year. Wolffish eggs are deposited in rocky substrates and brooded
in nests, which are guarded by males for some period but perhaps all the way until hatching. The
temperature range for wolffish eggs is assumed to be the temperature range in which adult
wolffish were captured in the NMFS trawl survey, 0 to 14.3° C. Salinity or dissolved oxygen

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

Proposed Action
Fishery Program Administration

preferences were not reported, however, wolffish are not known to occur in brackish or estuarine
waters, and it is assumed that the offshore waters they inhabit are well-mixed/oxygenated.
Larvae
Essential fish habitat for wolffish larvae is described as the surface to the seafloor across the
predominant depth and distribution range identified for the species, 40 to 240 meters within the
Gulf of Maine south to Cape Cod, and on Georges Bank. Larvae remain close to the bottom and
the hatching site, presumably using rocky substrates for shelter. Because wolffish appear to be
largely sedentary and the larvae do not appear to have a long (if any) pelagic stage, the
temperature range for larval wolffish is assumed to be the temperature range in which adult
wolffish were captured in the NMFS trawl survey, 0 to 14.3° C. Salinity or dissolved oxygen
preferences were not reported, however, wolffish are not known to occur in brackish or estuarine
waters, and it is assumed that the offshore waters they inhabit are well-mixed/oxygenated.
Juveniles
Wolffish in the Gulf of Maine reach maturity at age 5-6 years, so fish younger than this age
would be considered juveniles. Essential fish habitat for wolffish juveniles is described as bottom
habitats of the continental shelf and slope within the Gulf of Maine south to Cape Cod, and on
Georges Bank. Substrate preferences range from large stones and rocks, used for shelter and
nesting, to softer substrates where feeding occurs. The depth range of Atlantic wolffish in this
region ranges from 40 to 240 meters. The preferred temperature range for adult wolffish is
assumed to be the temperature range within which they were caught in the NMFS trawl surveys,
0 to 14.3° C. Salinity or dissolved oxygen preferences were not reported, however, wolffish are
not known to occur in brackish or estuarine waters, and it is assumed that the offshore waters they
inhabit are well-mixed/oxygenated.
Adults
Essential fish habitat for wolffish adults is described as bottom habitats of the continental shelf
and slope within the Gulf of Maine south to Cape Cod, and on Georges Bank. Substrate
preferences range from large stones and rocks, used for shelter and nesting, to softer substrates
where feeding occurs. The depth range of Atlantic wolffish in this region ranges from 40 to 240
meters. The preferred temperature range for adult wolffish is assumed to be the temperature range
within which they were caught in the NMFS trawl surveys, between 0 and 14.3° C. Salinity or
dissolved oxygen preferences were not reported, however, wolffish are not known to occur in
brackish or estuarine waters, and it is assumed that the offshore waters they inhabit are wellmixed/oxygenated.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

Proposed Action
Fishery Program Administration
Map 1 – Wolffish EFH Option 2, all life stages

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

4.2.3 Sector administration provisions
The management measures proposed in this section relate to the process for establishing sector
allocations in the multispecies fishery. This section updates Section 3.4.16.1 of the final
Amendment 13 SEIS (Sector Allocation). Rather than only identify changes to sector
administration policies in this section, this section is a complete rewrite of the entire program.
This section will serve as a summary of all groundfish sector policies in effect. All of the sector
policy changes proposed in this section will be implemented at the beginning of fishing year 2010
(May 1, 2010).
A sector allocation system apportions part or all of groundfish fishery resources (denominated in
terms of catch) to various industry sectors. While vessels might be assigned to sectors based on
factors such as gear used, permit category, vessel size, homeport, area fished, etc., this measure
allows vessels to form sectors of their own choosing. Such self-selected sectors might be based on
common fishing practices, vessel characteristics, community organization, or marketing
arrangements, but this would not be required. Since self-selection of sector membership would
not necessarily be based on any common vessel or gear characteristics this alternative offers a
great deal of flexibility in the formation of sectors. A group of permit holders would simply agree
to form a sector and submit a binding plan for management of that sector’s allocation of catch or
effort. Allocations to each sector may be based on catch (hard TACs). Vessels within the sector
would be allowed to pool harvesting resources and consolidate operations in fewer vessels if they
desired. One of the major benefits of self selecting sectors is that they provide incentives to selfgovern, therefore, reducing the need for Council-mandated measures. They also provide a
mechanism for capacity reduction through consolidation.
When evaluating the alternatives described below for the sector allocation process and the
determination of sector contributions, the Council will consider the following goals:
•

Address bycatch issues;

•

Simplify management;

•

Give industry greater control over their own fate;

•

Provide a mechanism for economics to shape the fleet rather than regulations
(while working to achieve fishing and biomass targets); and

•

Prevent excessive consolidation that would eliminate the day boat fishery.

The alternatives for modifying and expanding the current sector allocation program for the
multispecies fishery are described in the subsections below. Where appropriate, the no action
alternative is identified relative to each issue for which changes or additions are being considered.

4.2.3.1

Sector Definition/Formation of a Sector

This section clarifies the definition of a sector and sector formation and makes groundfish sectors
consistent with the Council’s sector policies.
Revisions to Sector Definitions/Formation of a Sector
A sector means a group of persons (three or more persons, none of whom have an ownership
interest in the other two persons in the sector) holding limited access vessel permits who have
voluntarily entered into a contract and agree to certain fishing restrictions for a specified period of
time, and which has been granted a TAC(s) in order to achieve objectives consistent with
Draft Northeast Multispecies Amendment 16
October 14, 2009

Proposed Action
Fishery Program Administration

applicable FMP goals and objectives. In the formation of a sector, sector participants can select
who may participate. Only vessels with a limited access multispecies permit are eligible to join a
multispecies sector. If specified in a future Council action, monkfish limited access permits may
be allowed to join a groundfish sector.
Confirmation of permit history (CPH) permits do not need to be activated in order to be
associated with/join a sector (this is consistent with a change to the Groundfish DAS leasing and
transfer programs proposed in section 4.2.6.2).
Participation in a self-selecting sector will be voluntary. Vessels that did not decide to join a
sector will remain in a common pool which will fish under the constraints imposed by the
Council. Individuals that wished to form a sector and receive an allocation of catch will be
required to submit a proposal for formation of a sector and a legally-binding plan of operations
which would require approval from the Regional Administrator (see below). These will be agreed
upon and signed by all members of the sector.
The motivation to form or join a sector could be for several reasons: a desire of its members to
consolidate operations in fewer vessels (reducing the cost of operations and possibly facilitating
the profitable exit of some individual vessel owners from the fishery); assurance that the members
of the sector would not face reductions of catch or effort as a result of the actions of vessels
outside the sector (e.g., if the other vessels exceed their target TACs), and, potentially, freedom
from restrictive regulations not needed to meet conservation objectives if the sector is constrained
by a hard TAC (e.g., trip limits and potentially some time-area restrictions).
Rationale: Under regulations implementing Amendment 13, permits in the CPH category cannot
join a sector. The rationale for this provision is unclear, but appears to relate to the idea that CPH
permits did not contribute to fishing mortality during the period prior to Amendment 13 and thus
should not contribute to sectors (or lease DAS) after the amendment’s adoption. CPH is not a
permanent category, however, and permits can be removed at any time. Vessel replacement
regulations allow the permits to be placed on any vessel, including skiffs, at any time. This
prohibition thus means only that there are administrative barriers to having a CPH permit join a
sector (or lease DAS). Option 2 acknowledges the reality of this situation and removes the
administrative barriers to having a CPH permit join a sector.

4.2.3.2

Preparation of a Sector Formation Proposal and Operations Plan

This section considers two options for the document that must be submitted in order to form a
sector.
Requirements identified in Amendment 13:
• A list of all participants and a contract signed by all participants indicating their agreement to
abide by the operations plan accompanying the proposal.
• With the implementation of Amendment 13, a sector’s operations plan must detail the
following:
o A list of all vessels that would be part of the sector including an indication for each
vessel of whether it would continue to fish;
o The original distribution of catch history or TACs;
o A detailed plan for consolidation of TACs or DAS, if any is desired, including a
detailing of the quantity and duration of any redistribution of TAC or DAS within the
sector;
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

Proposed Action
Fishery Program Administration

A plan and analysis to show how the sector will avoid exceeding their allocated
TACs (or target TACs if the allocation is in terms of DAS). This plan should include
provisions for monitoring and enforcement of the sector regulations, including
documentation of both landings and discards;
Rules for entry and exit to the sector (see more on this in next section) including
procedures for removing or disciplining members of the sector who do not abide by
its rules. Rules for entry and exit must also define how catch or DAS history that is
developed by vessels participating in a sector is assigned to each vessel;
Procedure for notifying NMFS if a member is expelled from the sector for violation
of sector regulations.

Additional requirements adopted by this action are:
o

Detailed information about overage penalties or other actions to be taken if the sector
exceeds its ACE. An ACE overage means the catches by a sector’s vessels exceed the
ACE possessed by the sector after considering all ACE transfers that take place for
the current fishing year (including those that occur up to two weeks into the
following fishing year, as allowed by the ACE transfer provisions, see section
4.2.3.7);

Detailed information about the sector’s independent third-party weighmaster system
that is satisfactory to NMFS for monitoring landings and utilization of ACE;

Detailed information about a monitoring program for discards (see additional
discussion of monitoring discards in Section 4.2.3.5).

A list of all Federal and State permits held by vessels participating in the sector, as
well as a requirement to notify NMFS if a member is expelled;

A list of specific ports where members will land fish; specific exceptions should be
noted (e.g., safety, weather) and allowed, provided there is reasonable notification of
a deviation from the listed ports; this requirement is in addition to the requirement for
detailed information about the sector’s independent third-party weighmaster system.

TAC thresholds and details regarding the sector’s plans for notifying NMFS once the
specified TAC threshold has been reached.

Identify potential redirection of effort as a result of sector operations, and if
necessary propose limitations to eliminate adverse effects of any redirection of effort.

Describe how groundfish will be avoided while participating in other fisheries that
have a bycatch of groundfish if the sector does not have ACE for the stocks caught.
This is only required if the sector wishes to participate in those fisheries where the
sector would normally be required to apply any groundfish catches against the
sector’s ACE (see section 4.2.3.4) and the sector does not anticipate being allocated
ACE or acquiring the needed ACE through transfers.

An appropriate NEPA document assessing the impacts of forming the sector must be prepared.
This will be written by the sector applicants, and submitted to NMFS through the Council. Any
changes in fishery regulations or fishing practices that may result on the basis of sector-based
management will be addressed in the regulations that implement a particular sector, and in the
EIS or EA corresponding to the creation or continuation of that sector. Such NEPA documents
prepared by the sectors (an EA or EIS) will be tiered from the Amendment 16 EIS. NMFS
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

100

Proposed Action
Fishery Program Administration

Northeast Region NEPA staff developed specific guidance for sectors on the preparation of EAs.
They are providing assistance to sector leadership in writing documents and developing sector
plans that meet the relevant requirements of the law.
The sector operations plan must be reviewed and approval given before the sector can operate. A
sector must submit its preliminary operations plan to the Council no less than one year prior to
the date that it wants to begin operations. Final operations plans may cover a two-year period
and must be submitted to NMFS no later than September 1 prior to the fishing year in which the
sector will operate. NMFS may consult with the Council and will solicit public comment on the
operations plan consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Upon review of the
public comments, the Regional Administrator may approve or disapprove sector operations,
through a final determination consistent with the APA.
Rationale: Option 2 expands on the submission requirements to require that sectors provide the
Council additional details on reporting and monitoring and participation in other fisheries so that
the Council can better evaluate the impacts of the sector.

4.2.3.3

Allocation of Resources

This section describes how resources will be allocated to sectors. It is nearly a complete revision
to the approach adopted in Amendment 13. The terminology of sector allocations is revised,
different ways to determine each permit’s share are considered, and sectors can no longer be
allocated DAS.

4.2.3.3.1 General
Revised Allocation of Resource Guidance
Sectors will be allocated a hard TAC of all regulated groundfish stocks with the exception of
halibut, ocean pout, windowpane flounder, Atlantic wolffish, and SNE/MA winter flounder.
Allocation of the SNE/MA winter flounder stock can be considered and adopted in the biennial
specification or framework process in the event a future allocation can be made available. If an
allocation of SNE/MA winter flounder is made, it will be made in the same manner as for other
multispecies stocks. The provisions in this amendment eliminate the 20% cap on TAC shares that
was established in Amendment 13. There will be no limit on the share of a stock’s TAC that can
be allocated to a sector. Consistent with the mortality controls described in 4.2.3.4 – which
require a sector to stop fishing in a stock’s area when ACE for that stock is caught or exceeded –
a sector can only fish in a particular stock area if it is allocated, or acquires through transfers,
ACE for all stocks in that area.
The share of the annual TAC for a stock that is allocated to a sector will be calculated based on
the history attached to each permit that joins the sector in a given year. This share may be
adjusted due to penalties for exceeding the TAC in earlier years, or due to other violations of the
management plan. When a sector’s share of a stock is multiplied by the available catch, the result
is the amount (weight) that can be harvested (landings and discards) that year. This amount
(adjusted if necessary due to prior overages or penalties) will be referred to as the sector’s
Annual Catch Entitlement, or ACE.
As discussed above, a sector’s operations plan must show how the sector plans to avoid
exceeding its ACE and must identify overage penalties and actions to be taken should the ACE be
exceeded. In cases where a sector exceeds its ACE, overages will be paid back in pounds, on a
pound per pound basis. An ACE overage means the catches by a sector’s vessels exceed the ACE
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

101

Proposed Action
Fishery Program Administration

possessed by the sector after considering all ACE transfers that take place for the current fishing
year (including those that occur up to two weeks into the following fishing year, as allowed by
the ACE transfer provisions, see section 4.2.3.7).
NMFS will withhold 20 percent of each ACE at the beginning of the fishing year for a period of
61 days. This is to allow for time to process any end-of-year transfers of ACE and to determine
whether any reductions in ACE are necessary due to overage in the previous year.
Rationale: This changes the sector provisions of Amendment 13 and clarifies how resources are
allocated to a sector. Sectors can no longer request an allocation of groundfish DAS based on the
DAS allocated to permits that join the sector. In addition, sectors fishing for groundfish must
have an allocation of all regulated groundfish stocks for which they qualify except halibut, ocean
pout, windowpane flounder, and SNE./MA winter flounder. This eliminates the situation where
sectors could request allocations of selected regulated groundfish stocks and modify effort
controls to facilitate targeting of other stocks.
TACs will not be allocated to sectors for Atlantic halibut, ocean pout, northern windowpane
flounder, and southern windowpane flounder because these stocks have small TACs, and vessels
have limited landings history. Allocating these stocks to sectors would complicate monitoring of
sector operations and would require a different scheme for determining each permit’s potential
sector contribution. Rather than complicate sector administration, sectors will be limited to
restrictions designed to discourage targeting of these stocks. For example, the catch of halibut is
limited to one fish per trip (see section 4.2.3.4).

4.2.3.3.2 Guidance on Sector Overages
Amendment 13 addressed sector overages in broad terms but did not address the situation if a
sector disbands or members leave a sector the year following an overage. To be clear, in the
subsequent discussion the term “sector overage” means exceeding a TAC in year one after any
ACE transfers have occurred with the result that the sector will receive a deduction of ACE in
year two.
This action adopts Option 1, the alternative to No Action to address the treatment of overages
should a sector a sector member leave the sector the year following an overage or if the sector
completely disbands following an overage. This option expands on the current guidance.
•
In the first situation, a vessel (or small number of vessels) leaves the sector but the
remaining vessels have enough ACE to cover the overage deduction. Any impacts on
departing members be specified and addressed by the sector operations plan and sector
contract rather than by regulation. This provides the most flexibility and can be done through
indemnification provisions and other legal constructs. Existing sectors have already
incorporated provisions that address this situation (such as limiting fishing activity by the
vessel if it leaves the sector the year after the overage). It also simplifies administration for
NMFS.
•
In the second, a sector disbands completely and no sector exists to cover the overage
deduction, or there is insufficient ACE in year two to cover the year one overage. In this
case, in order to account for the overharvested fish, individual permit holders are held
responsible for reducing their catch the appropriate amount in the subsequent fishing year
(rather than the sector, since it no longer exists). The deduction follows the individual
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

102

Proposed Action
Fishery Program Administration

permits. If an individual permit joins another sector, the overage penalty follows that permit
into the other sector. Each permit is responsible for part of the overage penalty, calculated as
simply the overage penalty divided by the number of vessels. If a permit does not join a
sector the permit receives a DAS penalty. Each permit receives a percentage reduction in
DAS equal to the maximum percentage overage of the sector. Example; the sector goes 5%
over on stock A and 10% on stock B each permit receives a 10% DAS reduction.
Rationale: If a sector exceeds its ACE in any given year, its allocation in the subsequent year is
reduced to account for the overage. This section specifies how exit of vessels from the sector
affects the overage provision.

4.2.3.3.3 U.S./Canada Area
Amendment 13 was silent on how sectors interact with the management program in the
U.S./Canada area. This action adopts Option 2, separate allocations for U.S./Canada are stocks.
For stocks that are managed under the terms of the US/CA Resource Management Understanding,
sectors will be provided a specific ACE for those stocks that have a TAC that is specific to the
Eastern US/CA area. At present, this applies to GB cod and GB haddock, but this measure is
intended to apply to other stocks if an area-specific TAC is defined. If a TAC is defined for the
Eastern US/CA area by the understanding, and that stock is caught both inside this area and
outside this area, a separate allocation of ACE will be made for each portion of the stock. These
allocations are not interchangeable; they can only be taken from the appropriate area. The
allocation of ACE will be the same percentage as the sector’s overall allocation for these stocks:
if a sector receives ten percent of the GB haddock, then it will receive ten percent of the Eastern
GB haddock.
With sectors receiving specific allocations of EGB cod and haddock, coupled with the guidance
on the interaction of sectors with common pool vessels (see section 4.2.3.9), management of the
US/CA areas (both Eastern and Western) can be modified to emphasize the responsibility of each
component of the fishery for its own catch. A component will be allowed to continue fishing in
the area as long as it has not exceeded its allocation even if overages by other components result
in the overall quota for the area being exceeded. As an example, if catches of yellowtail flounder
by the scallop fishery result in the total catch exceeding the quota for the area, common pool and
sector groundfish vessels will be allowed to continue fishing in the area as long as they have the
allocations needed. Similarly, if the common pool vessels overharvest their quota for a US/CA
stock, sectors would be allowed to continue fishing as long as they have the ACE needed to fish
in the area (including ACE for stocks other than EGB cod, EGB haddock, and GB yellowtail
flounder, as necessary). Given the measures used to control catches in the US/CA areas, it is
unlikely that such a situation will occur. The measures include adjustments to the quota in future
years should an overage occur.
Rationale: This measure ensures that common-pool and sector fishing vessels fishing in the
Eastern US/CA area do not adversely impact each other. It prevents one group from catching the
entire TAC in the area, closing it to the other group. At present, specific eastern US/CA area
allocations will only be made for Eastern GB cod and Eastern GB haddock, but is written so that
it can be applied to other stocks in the future if necessary. The concept that catches by one
component do not affect access to the area by other components applies to all stocks managed by
a TAC for the US/CA area (at implementation of this action, GB yellowtail flounder, EGB cod,
and EGB haddock).

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

103

Proposed Action
Fishery Program Administration

4.2.3.3.4 Sector Baseline Calculations/Potential Sector Contributions
This section is a new section that adopts different options for determining the amount of
resources allocated to sectors. Amendment 13 addressed this issue in a section labeled
“Allocation of resources” and adopted a specific time period for determining the share of a TAC
that each permit brings to a sector. This section also introduces new terms that better define the
different elements used to determine sector allocations and clarifies several issues with respect to
the calculation of landings history (for example, that live weight is used).
In order to allocate a share of the available catch to a sector, the potential sector contribution
(PSC) (commonly referred to as permit history) for each permit must be calculated. Unless
changed by a future action, once a permit’s PSC is calculated in accordance with the selected
PSC options, that PSC is permanent. The Council cautions that regardless which method is used
to determine permit history in this management action, the Council may choose a different
method for calculating permit history in the future.
Note that ACE would be allocated to the sector as a whole and not necessarily to individual
vessels within the sector. The self-selecting sector would then have to develop its own set of rules
to distribute the sector’s allocation among its membership. Allocation of TACs must be consistent
with the measures adopted for the remainder of the fishery. If measures designed for the rest of
the fishery will reduce mortality of a species well below its target, it may be inappropriate to base
the TAC for a sector on the target fishing mortality.
Closed Area 1 Hook Gear Haddock SAP landings can be used to determine potential sector
contributions in all of the alternatives described below. This is a change from earlier sector
policies which said these landings would not be considered.
For all options considered, when calculating the proportion of a permit’s PSC that is based on
landings, landed weight will be converted to live weight so that the PSC that results is consistent
with the way TACs are allocated to sectors (sector allocations are based on live weight). This is
also necessary so that landings of different products (dressed or whole) are evaluated on a
consistent basis.

4.2.3.3.4.1

Option 1 - Landings History Only FY 1996 – FY 2006

Under the Proposed Action, PSC will be based on the landings history of each permit during the
time period FY 1996 – FY 2006. Landings history will be based on the information in the NMFS
commercial dealer database. For each permit, the landings for each stock will be summed over
the time period. This value will be divided by the total landings by permits eligible to join sectors
(as of April 30, 2008) during the same period. This includes limited access permits (including
Handgear A permits) and limited access permits that are in the confirmation of permit history
category. The landings history for each permit that is included in the denominator is all landings
during the qualification period that can be attributed to that permit; for Handgear A permits, it
includes landings by the permitted vessel during the period FY 1996 through FY 2003, prior to
the adoption of the Handgear A permit category. The result will be the share of each stock for
each permit. Discards will not be counted when calculating permit history, even though both
discards and landings are counted against a sector’s ACE.
Rationale: This option is based on the concept that vessel landing history reflects current
participation in the fishery. An eleven year period is used to mitigate regulatory changes and their
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

104

Proposed Action
Fishery Program Administration

impacts on individual vessels. A date is specified for calculating history (the end of FY 2007) so
that the calculation is only done once and the resulting shares become fixed. This date was
selected as it is the last day that a vessel can renew its permit for FY 2007.

4.2.3.3.4.2

Option 5 – GB Cod PSCs for Existing Sectors

For any permits that committed to either the GB Cod Hook Gear Sector or the Fixed Gear Sector,
the PSC of GB cod will be calculated as adopted by Amendment 13. That is, the sector share will
be calculated based on landings of GB cod during the period FY 1996-FY 2001, divided by the
total landings of GB cod during that period. This calculation will only apply to those permits that
committed to either of the sectors as of March 1, 2008. For any permits that were not committed
to either of the sectors as of that date the PSC will be calculated as adopted by this action. For all
other stocks, the PSC will be calculated as adopted by this action. In effect, this option applies
the No Action alternative for GB cod to those permits that previously committed to either the GB
Cod Hook Sector or the GB Cod Fixed Gear Sector.
As with other PSC calculations, once a permit has its GB cod PSC determined using this
allocation option, that PSC remains with the permit regardless whether the permit remains in one
of the two existing sectors, joins a new sector, or exits all sectors and fishes in the common pool.
Rationale: This option recognizes that vessels that committed to one of these sectors as of March
1, 2008 made investment decisions based on the qualification criteria adopted by Amendment 13.
To change the allocation method might disadvantage those vessels. A fixed pool of vessels has to
be identified for this provision or else each time a vessel enters or exits one of these sectors, the
potential sector contribution for all permits must be recalculated.

4.2.3.4

Mortality/Conservation Controls

This section is nearly a complete rewrite of a similar section that was in Amendment 13. It
addresses several issues that are raised by the adoption of ACLs and clarifies which elements of
groundfish catch are counted against a sector allocation.
Option 1 – Revisions to Mortality/Conservation Controls
This action proposes additional details on the mortality and conservation controls required of
sectors. Sectors are required to ensure that ACEs are not exceeded during the fishing year.
Sectors should project when its ACE will be exceeded and should cease fishing operations prior
to exceeding it. If the sector’s ACE for a stock is exceeded, the sector must cease operations in
that stock area until it can acquire additional ACE through a transfer to balance the catch, and the
sector also must comply with other overage penalties that may be applicable.
It will be necessary to establish appropriate restrictions on catch or effort for each sector to ensure
that they do not exceed their ACE (through landings or discards). Hard annual TACs by species
will be allocated to the sector as a whole. The sector will be required to submit an Operations
Plan for approval by the Regional Administrator. The Operations Plan should detail the allocation
of ACE within the group, how the catch of the sector would be monitored, and a plan for
operations or stopping once the ACEs of one or more species are taken. TAC thresholds and
details regarding the sector’s plans for notifying NMFS once the specified TAC threshold has
been reached also must be part of the operations plan. The plan must provide assurance that the
sector would not exceed the ACEs allocated to it (either through landings or discards). See
Section 4.2.3.1 for specific requirements of the sector Operations Plan.
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

105

Proposed Action
Fishery Program Administration

A sector is expected to monitor catch and stop fishing in the appropriate stock areas before ACE
available to the sector is exceeded. In the event a sector exceeds its ACE in spite of this
requirement, sector vessels must stop fishing in the applicable stock area. Sector vessels may
resume fishing in the stock area if additional ACE is acquired that supports additional fishing
activity.
The ACE allocated to sectors applies to all catches of those stocks by sector vessels, whether
caught during directed groundfish fishing trips or on other trips, unless the groundfish is an
element of another ACL or ACL sub-component. For example, groundfish caught while targeting
skates or monkfish applies to the sector’s groundfish TAC because these landings are not subject
to another ACL and landings on these types of trips contributed to a permit’s PSC. If the sector
does not have ACE available, then its vessels cannot participate in these other fisheries unless the
sector can demonstrate to NMFS that groundfish will not be caught; this information must be
presented in the sector’s operations plan. If the groundfish caught are an element of another ACL
or ACL sub-component, then it does not apply to the sector’s ACE. For example, since an ACL
sub-component for yellowtail flounder is determined for scallop vessels, yellowtail flounder
caught by a sector vessel fishing in the General Category scallop fishery, or by a vessel with a
combination groundfish permit that is fishing in the scallop dredge fishery, applies to the ACL
sub-component and not the sector’s ACE. If a vessel is participating in a fishery that is included
in the “other non-groundfish” sub-component (for example, whiting, fluke, shrimp, etc.), then that
catch does not apply to the sector’s ACE.
Sector vessels are prohibited from landing ocean pout, windowpane flounder, and SNE/MA
winter flounder. This will discourage sectors from targeting these stocks.

4.2.3.5

Monitoring and Enforcement

Amendment 13 adopted the concept that sectors are responsible for monitoring sector catch and
enforcing sector provisions but provided few details for that requirement. This section addresses
those requirements and organizes requirements from several sections of Amendment 13 into one
location.

4.2.3.5.1 Revised Monitoring and Enforcement Provisions - General
It will be the responsibility of each sector to enforce any provisions adopted through procedures
established in the operations plan and agreed to through the sector contract. Ultimately, a sector
may desire to expel a member due to repeated violations of sector provisions. Once a vessel
enters into a sector, it cannot fish during that fishing year under the regulations that apply to the
common pool. In other words, if a vessel is expelled from a sector, it cannot participate in the
groundfish fishery during the remainder of that fishing year.
For the purposes of enforcement, a sector is a legal entity that can be subject to NMFS
enforcement action for violations of the regulations pertaining to sectors. Vessels operating
within a sector are responsible for judgments against the sector.
Sector operations plans will specify how a sector will monitor its catch to assure that sector catch
does not exceed the sector allocation. At the end of the fishing year, NMFS will evaluate catch
using IVR, VMS, and any other available information to determine whether a sector has exceeded
any of its allocations based on the list of participating vessels submitted in the operations plan.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

106

Proposed Action
Fishery Program Administration

As previously noted, the determination that a sector has exceeded the ACE for a stock and is
subject to an overage penalty is made after considering all transfers. The ability to balance
catches and ACE through transfers does not excuse a sector from the requirements to adequately
monitor catch and stop fishing when it is projected that an ACE will be harvested. Repeated
instances of exceeding ACE may be evidence of inadequate monitoring systems, poor compliance
with an operations plan, or a failure to adhere to other regulatory requirements. A sector may be
subject to administrative or enforcement action for these shortfalls, even if the sector is able to
complete ACE transfers so that an ACE overage does not exist.
As required by section 4.2.3.2, sectors must notify NMFS if a member is ejected from the sector.
The next two sections describe the requirements necessary for monitoring both landings and
discards. These sections add additional requirements to those currently in place (such as
weighmasters/dockside monitors for all landings, improved discard monitoring systems, etc.).
The range of alternative considered by the Council includes the current system (No Action, see
above) as well as the system proposed below.

4.2.3.5.2 Enforcement
It will be the responsibility of each sector to enforce any provisions adopted through procedures
established in the operations plan and agreed to through the sector contract. Ultimately, a sector
may desire to expel a member due to repeated violations of sector provisions. Once a vessel
enters into a sector, it cannot fish during that fishing year under the regulations that apply to the
common pool. In other words, if a vessel is expelled from a sector, it cannot participate in the
groundfish fishery during the remainder of that fishing year.
For the purposes of enforcement, a sector is a legal entity that can be subject to NMFS
enforcement action for violations of the regulations pertaining to sectors. Vessels operating
within a sector are responsible for judgments against the sector. The following options are
adopted to further explain this concept. These provisions are in addition to other sector
requirements currently in place or adopted through this action.
Option 2: Sectors may be held jointly liable for violations of the following sector operations plan
requirements:
•
•
•

ACE overages
Discarding of legal-sized fish
Misreporting of catch (landings or discards)

Rationale: This change limits the elements of the operations plan for which sectors are subject to
joint and several liability.
Option 3: Should a hard TAC allocated to a sector be exceeded in a given fishing year, the
sector’s allocation will be reduced by the overage in the following fishing year, and the sector,
each vessel, and vessel operator and/or vessel owner participating in the sector may be charged,
as a result of said overages, jointly and severally for civil penalties and permit sanctions pursuant
to 15 CFR Part 904. If the sector exceeds its TAC in more than one (1) fishing year, the sector’s
share may be permanently reduced or the sector’s authorization to operate may be withdrawn.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

107

Proposed Action
Fishery Program Administration

Rationale: This option clarifies regulatory text to indicate that sectors are jointly liable for
overages of the TAC, and clarifies the repercussions of such overages.

4.2.3.5.3 Sector Monitoring Requirements
Sector operations plans will specify how a sector will monitor its catch to assure that sector catch
does not exceed the sector allocation. At the end of the fishing year, NMFS will evaluate catch
using IVR, VMS, and any other available information to determine whether a sector has exceeded
any of its allocations based on the list of participating vessels submitted in the operations plan.
The next paragraphs describe the requirements necessary for monitoring both landings and
discards. These sections add additional requirements to those currently in place (such as
weighmasters/dockside monitors for all landings, improved discard monitoring systems, etc.).
These provisions are in addition to other sector requirements currently in place or adopted
through this action.
Monitoring of Landings and Discards
Sectors are responsible for developing mechanisms in their operations plans that satisfy
monitoring requirements for catch and landings. Certain requirements will begin in FY 2010, and
others will be phased in over the ensuing three-year period.
Sector operations plans must provide detailed information about how landings in the fishery will
be monitored, reported, and enforced within the sector.
•
•
•
•

•

Sectors are required to land all legal-sized fish from stocks managed by the FMP that are
specifically allocated to the sector.
Sectors must comply with other rules regarding broad reporting areas as specified in this
Amendment, including demonstrating the ability to accurately attribute landings to a
specific statistical area.
Sectors are required to report all landings and discards by sector vessels to NMFS on a
weekly basis.
Sectors are required to develop and implement an independent third-party
weighmaster/dockside monitoring system that is satisfactory to NMFS for monitoring
landings and utilization of ACE. The details of the weighmaster/dockside monitoring
system must be provided in the sector’s operations plan.
The sector operations plan also must include a list of specific ports where members will
land fish; specific exceptions should be noted (e.g., safety, weather) and allowed,
provided there is reasonable notification of a deviation from the listed ports.

The industry will be responsible for the development of and costs associated with a program,
including an observer program that will satisfy the monitoring rules. Such a program should
include the use of an independent private contractor(s) to coordinate roving and dockside monitor
deployment, summarize trips validated by dealer reports, oversee the use of electronic monitoring
equipment, and review data associated with the program. Either the contractor or sector manager
should maintain a database of VTR, dealer, observer, and electronic monitoring reports. In
addition, that entity should determine all species landings by stock and statistical areas, apply
discard estimates to landings, deduct catch from sector TACs, and submit weekly reports
detailing status, catch, and discards, including compliance concerns to the sector and NMFS. Any

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

108

Proposed Action
Fishery Program Administration

sector monitoring program will not replace the current VTR and dealer reporting requirements of
the existing law nor any additional reporting requirements proposed in this Amendment.
In FY 2010 and FY 2011, sectors will be responsible for meeting all existing reporting
requirements, including any requirements associated with NMFS Observer Program coverage. A
dockside monitoring program will also be implemented in order to verify landings of a vessel at
the time it is weighed by a dealer, to certify the landing weights are accurate as reported on the
dealer report. Pre-sailing and pre-landing hails will be required in order to coordinate the
deployment of dockside or roving monitors, and reports of those hails will be made to the sector
manager/monitoring contractor (and other entities if directed by NMFS). A dockside monitor will
meet vessels upon landing and validate the dealer report. For offloads to trucks, a roving monitor
may meet the vessel and confirm the landings.
In FY 2012 and beyond, all of the requirements previously in place will remain. In addition, an
industry-funded observer or at-sea monitor program will be implemented along with the use of
electronic at-sea monitoring. The primary goal of observers or at-sea monitors for sector
monitoring is to verify area fished, catch, and discards by species, by gear type. This data will be
reported to the sector managers and to the NMFS. Electronic monitoring may be used in place of
actual observers or at-sea monitors if the technology is deemed sufficient for a specific trip based
on gear type and area fished. When a vessel issues a pre-sailing hail, the monitoring contractor
will decide whether that vessel is required to carry an observer or will be subject to electronic
monitoring. If either is assigned, a vessel will not be allowed to leave port without the appropriate
equipment. The industry-funded observer or at-sea monitor program will not replace the NMFS
Observer Program. In the event a NMFS observer and a third party observer or at-sea monitor are
assigned to the same trip, the NMFS observer will take precedence and the third party observer or
at-sea monitor will stand down. Observers or at-sea monitors will be required to submit reports on
catch, discard, and other data elements to NMFS and/or the sector manager and/or the monitoring
contractor.
For dockside monitoring, the required coverage will be as follows:
FY 2010: Random dockside monitoring of 50% of trips in each sector.
Subsequent years: Random dockside monitoring of 20% of trips in each sector.
For observer or at-sea monitor coverage, minimum coverage levels must meet the coefficient of
variation in the Standardized Bycatch Reporting Methodology. The required levels of coverage
will be set by NMFS based on information provided by the Northeast Fisheries Science Center
(NEFSC) and may consider factors other than the SBRM CV standard when determining
appropriate levels. Any electronic monitoring equipment or systems used to provide at-sea
monitoring will be subject to the approval of NMFS through review and approval of the sector
operations plan. Less than 100% electronic monitoring and at-sea observation will be required.
Assumed discard rates will be applied to sectors unless an at-sea monitoring system (such as a
sector’s independent monitoring program, a federal monitoring program, or other program that
NMFS determines is adequate) provides accurate information for use of actual discard rates.
Sector operations plans must provide detailed information about how discards in the fishery will
be monitored, reported, and enforced within the sector.
•

Discards will not be counted when determining the sector’s ACE/permit PSCs but will be
counted against the ACE during the fishing year. When data is available from an adequate atsea monitoring program (such as a federal observer program, a sector provided program, or

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

109

Proposed Action
Fishery Program Administration

•

•
•

other program that NMFS determines is adequate), in-season discard rates will be determined
using a procedure specified by NMFS.
A sector must develop an adequate monitoring system and demonstrate to NMFS that
discards can be accurately monitored and counted as part of the ACE, at the sector’s expense,
by FY 2012. Details about such a monitoring system must be provided in the sector’s
operations plan. This system will enable the sector to deduct annual discards from the ACE
instead of using assumed discard rates.
Discard rates used if data from an adequate at-sea monitoring program is not available will be
determined using a sector-specific discard rate. A sector-specific discard rate will be
calculated for each stock and gear based on observer data from the previous year. If NMFS
determines there are insufficient data to estimate discard rates at this fine of a scale, the fleetwide stock and gear discard rate would be used for those sector-gear combinations. When
calculating discard rates, regulatory discards of legal-sized fish caused by trip limits will be
excluded.
Assumed discards will be calculated for the gear/species combinations shown in Table 19. If
other discards are observed they will be counted against sector ACE regardless of whether the
specific gear/species combination is listed in this table. While it is possible that discards may
be observed with other gear/species combinations shown in Table 19, the absence of data
makes it impossible to develop an assumed discard rate and apply it to landings. This is an
element of uncertainty that should be considered in setting sector ACLs.
Discards will be counted at the previous assumed discard rate, calculated as often as is
practicable, by gear. The calculated discard rate will be used to add a discard estimate to each
landing by sector vessels so that total catch can be determined for each trip.
If a trip is observed, the discards reported by the observer or at-sea monitor on that trip till be
counted as the discards for that trip. Unobserved trips will use a discard estimate calculated
from the observed trips.

Other requirements of sector monitoring plans may be implemented as directed by the Regional
Administrator. The exact details of sector monitoring plans will be included in the sector’s
operations plan, and NMFS will approve the monitoring plan as part of the review of the
operations plan.
Rationale: The only fishing mortality control for sectors is the hard TAC that, if caught, results in
the sector vessels not being allowed to fish. Effective management of sectors requires that catch
be accurately known. This is important not only for managers but also so that each sector is
confident that all sectors are being held to the same standards. The provisions in this section are
designed to ensure that landings are accurately monitored. The weighmaster/dockside monitoring
system provides an independent verification of landed weights. A portion of catch could be
comprised of discards. A two-step approach is being taken to monitor discards if at-sea
monitoring is not available. First, initially an estimated discard rate will be developed that will be
used to inflate sector landings to total catch. This approach is required because there is only
limited experience with what discard rates will be for vessels operating in sectors. Sectors are
next required to develop an adequate at-sea monitoring program so that each sector’s discards can
be determined. This implementation is phased in so that sectors have time to develop these
systems, locate qualified vendors, and have their programs approved by NMFS.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

110

Proposed Action
Fishery Program Administration

4.2.3.5.4 Standards for Sector Monitoring and Reporting Service Providers
Amendment 13 did not establish any requirements for the service providers that help sectors
monitor catches. This section proposes those requirements. These provisions are in addition to
other sector requirements currently in place or adopted through this action.
The following standards would be used by NMFS to evaluate service providers employed by
sectors to comply with the dockside and at-sea monitoring and reporting requirements outlined in
this section. NMFS will certify/approve service providers and associated dockside, roving,
and/or at-sea monitors as eligible to provide sector monitoring services based upon criteria
specified below and can decertify/disapprove service providers and/or individual monitors if such
criteria are no longer being met. A service provider is not required to offer both dockside and atsea monitoring services to be approved/certified by NMFS to provide sector monitoring services.
NMFS will publish a list of approved service providers consistent with the APA. In its yearly
operations plan, each sector must demonstrate that its sector monitoring program adheres to the
sector monitoring and reporting requirements outlined in this section, including the use of an
approved service provider for sector reporting and dockside, roving, and/or at-sea monitoring
services before the operations plan can be approved by NMFS. The following standards and
criteria for approval can be further modified by a future Council action.
Sector monitoring program service providers, including those providing dockside, roving, and atsea monitor services, must apply for certification/approval from NMFS. NMFS shall approve or
disapprove a service provider based upon the completeness of the application and a determination
of the applicant's ability to perform the duties and responsibilities of a sector monitoring service
provider, as further defined below. As part of that application, potential service providers must
include the following information:
•
•
•

•

•
•
•

Identification of corporate structure, including the names and duties of controlling
interests in the company such as owners, board members, authorized agents, and staff;
and articles of incorporation, or a partnership agreement, as appropriate.
Contact information for official correspondence and communication with any other office
A statement, signed under penalty of perjury, from each owner, board member, and
officer that they are free from a conflict of interest with fishing-related parties including,
but not limited to, vessels, dealers, shipping companies, sectors, sector managers,
advocacy groups, or research institutions and will not accept, directly or indirectly, any
gratuity, gift, favor, entertainment, loan, or anything of monetary value from such parties.
A statement, signed under penalty of perjury, from each owner, board member, and
officer describing any criminal convictions, Federal contracts they have had, and the
performance rating they received on the contract, and previous decertification action
while working as an observer or observer service provider.
A description of any prior experience the applicant may have in placing individuals in
remote field and/or marine work environments. This includes, but is not limited to,
recruiting, hiring, deployment, and personnel administration.
A description of the applicant's ability to carry out the responsibilities and duties of a
sector monitoring/reporting service provider and the arrangements to be used, including
whether the service provider is able to offer dockside and/or at-sea monitoring services.
Evidence of adequate insurance to cover injury, liability, and accidental death for
dockside, roving, and at-sea monitors (including during training). Workers'
Compensation and Maritime Employer's Liability insurance must be provided to cover
the dockside, roving, and at-sea monitors; vessel owner; and service provider. Service

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

111

Proposed Action
Fishery Program Administration

•
•
•
•

providers shall provide copies of the insurance policies to dockside, roving, and at-sea
monitors to display to the vessel owner, operator, or vessel manager, when requested.
Service providers shall provide benefits and personnel services in accordance with the
terms of each monitor’s contract or employment status.
Proof that the service provider’s dockside, roving, and at-sea monitors have passed an
adequate training course that is consistent with the curriculum used in the current NEFOP
training course, unless otherwise specified by NMFS.
An Emergency Action Plan (EAP) describing the provider’s response to an emergency
with a dockside, roving, and at-sea monitors, including, but not limited to, personal
injury, death, harassment, or intimidation.
Evidence that the company is in good financial standing.

Monitoring service providers must be able to document compliance with the following criteria
and requirements:
•

•
•

A comprehensive plan to deploy NMFS-certified dockside, roving, and/or at-sea
monitors, or other at-sea monitoring mechanism, such as electronic monitoring
equipment that is approved by NMFS, according to a prescribed coverage level (or level
of precision for catch estimation), as specified by NMFS, including all of the necessary
vessel reporting/notice requirements to facilitate such deployment, including the
following requirements:
o A service provider must be available to industry 24 hours per day, 7 days per
week, with the telephone system monitored a minimum of four times daily to
ensure rapid response to industry requests.
o A service provider must be able to deploy dockside, roving, and/or at-sea
monitors, or other approved at-sea monitoring mechanism to all ports in which
service is required by this section, or a subset of ports as part of a contract with a
particular sector.
o A service provider must report dockside, roving, and at-sea monitors and other
approved at-sea monitoring mechanism deployments to NMFS and the sector
manager in a timely manner to determine whether the predetermined coverage
levels are being achieved for the appropriate sector.
o A service provider must assign dockside, roving, and at-sea monitors and other
approved at-sea monitoring mechanisms in a fair and equitable manner without
regard to any preference by the sector manager or representatives of vessels other
than when the service is needed and the availability of approved/certified
monitors and other at-sea monitoring mechanisms.
o A service provider’s dockside, roving, and at-sea monitor assignment must be
representative of fishing activities within each sector and must be able to monitor
fishing activity throughout the fishing year.
o For service providers offering catch estimation or at-sea monitoring services, a
service provider must be able to determine an estimate of discards for each trip,
and provide such information to the sector manager and NMFS, as appropriate
and required by this section.
The service provider must ensure that dockside, roving, and at-sea monitors remain
available to NMFS, including NMFS Office for Law Enforcement, for debriefing for at
least 2 weeks following any monitored trip/offload.
The service provider must report possible dockside, roving, and at-sea monitor
harassment; discrimination; concerns about vessel safety or marine casualty; injury; and
any information, allegations, or reports regarding dockside, roving, or at-sea monitor

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

112

Proposed Action
Fishery Program Administration

•

•
•

•

•
•

conflict of interest or breach of the standards of behavior to NMFS and/or the sector
manager, as specified by NMFS.
Service providers must submit to NMFS, if requested, a copy of each signed and valid
contract (including all attachments, appendices, addendums, and exhibits incorporated
into the contract) between the service provider and those entities requiring services (i.e.,
sectors and participating vessels) and between the service provider and specific dockside,
roving, or at-sea monitors.
Service providers must submit to NMFS, if requested, copies of any information
developed and used by the service providers distributed to vessels, such as informational
pamphlets, payment notification, description of duties, etc.
A service provider may refuse to deploy a dockside, roving, or at-sea monitor or other
approved at-sea monitoring mechanism on a requesting fishing vessel for any reason
including, but not limited to, the following:
o If the service provider does not have an available dockside/roving monitor prior
to a vessel’s intended date/time of landing, or if the service provider does not
have an available at-sea monitor or other at-sea monitoring mechanism approved
by NMFS within the advanced notice requirements established by the service
provider.
o If the service provider is not given adequate notice of vessel departure or landing
from the sector manager or participating vessels, as specified by the service
provider.
o If the service provider has determined that the requesting vessel is inadequate or
unsafe pursuant to the reasons described at § 600.746.
o For any other reason, including failure to pay for previous deployments of
dockside, roving, or at-sea monitors other approved at-sea monitoring
mechanism.
A service provider must not have a direct or indirect interest in a fishery managed under
Federal regulations, including, but not limited to, fishing vessels, dealers, shipping
companies, sectors, sector managers, advocacy groups, or research institutions and may
not solicit or accept, directly or indirectly, any gratuity, gift, favor, entertainment, loan, or
anything of monetary value from anyone who conducts fishing or fishing-related
activities that are regulated by NMFS, or who has interests that may be substantially
affected by the performance or nonperformance of the official duties of service providers.
This does not apply to corporations providing reporting, dockside, and/or at-sea
monitoring services to participants of another fishery managed under Federal regulations.
A system to record, retain, and distribute the following information to NMFS, as
requested, for a period specified by NMFS:
o Dockside, roving, and/or at-sea monitor and other approved monitoring
equipment deployment levels, including the number of refusals and reasons for
such refusals
o Incident/non-compliance reports (e.g., failure to offload catch)
o Hail reports, landings records, and other associated communications with vessels
A means to protect the confidentiality and privacy of data submitted by vessels, as
required by the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
A service provider must be able to supply dockside and at-sea monitors with sufficient
safety and data-gathering equipment, as specified by NMFS.

Standards for Approval/Certification of Individual Dockside/Roving Monitors
For an individual to be certified as a dockside or roving monitor, the service provider must
demonstrate that each potential monitor meets the following criteria:
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

113

Proposed Action
Fishery Program Administration

•
•
•

•
•

A high school diploma or legal equivalent.
Successful completion of all NMFS-required training and briefings before deployment.
Physical capacity for carrying out the responsibilities of a dockside/roving monitor
pursuant to standards established by NMFS such as being certified by a physician to be
physically fit to work as a dockside/roving monitor. The physician must understand the
monitor’s job and working conditions, including the possibility that a monitor may be
required to climb a ladder to inspect fish holds and/or trucks.
Absence of fisheries-related convictions based upon a thorough background check
Independence from fishing-related parties including, but not limited to, vessels, dealers,
shipping companies, sectors, sector managers, advocacy groups, or research institutions
to prevent conflicts of interest

Standards for Approval/Certification of Individual At-Sea Monitors
For an individual to be certified as an at-sea monitor, the service provider must demonstrate that
each potential monitor meets the following criteria:
• A high school diploma or legal equivalent.
• Successful completion of all NMFS-required training and briefings before deployment
• Physical and mental capacity for carrying out the responsibilities of an at-sea monitor on
board fishing vessels, pursuant to standards established by NMFS such as being certified
by a physician to be physically fit to work as an at-sea monitor. The physician must
understand the monitor’s job and working conditions. Physical considerations include,
but are not limited to the following:
o Susceptibility to chronic motion sickness;
o Ability to live in confined quarters;
o Ability to tolerate stress;
o Ability to lift and carry heavy objects up to 50 pounds;
o Ability to drag heavy objects up to 200 pounds; and
o Ability to climb a ladder.
• A current Red Cross (or equivalent) CPR/first aid certification.
• Absence of fisheries-related convictions based upon a thorough background check
• Independence from fishing-related parties including, but not limited to, vessels, dealers,
shipping companies, sectors, sector managers, advocacy groups, or research institutions
to prevent conflicts of interest

4.2.3.6

Sector Annual Report Requirements

Current regulations require an annual report but Amendment 13 was unclear on the requirements
for that report. This section expands on those requirements.
The annual report is intended to provide information necessary to evaluate the biological,
economic, and social impacts of sectors and their fishing operations. As such, information must
be provided that described the catch and characteristics of the sector.
Approved sectors must submit an annual year-end report to NMFS and the Council, within 60
days of the end of the fishing year that summarizes the fishing activities of its members, including
harvest levels of all species by sector vessels (landings and discards by gear type), enforcement
actions, and other relevant information required to evaluate the performance of the sector. The
annual report must report the number of sector vessels that fished for regulated groundfish and
the permit numbers of those vessels (except when this would violate protection of
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

114

Proposed Action
Fishery Program Administration

confidentiality), the number of vessels that fished for other species, the method used to estimate
discards, the landing ports used by sector vessels while landing regulated groundfish, and any
other information requested by the Regional Administrator.
Rationale: This measure clarifies the information that should be reported in annual reports so that
sectors can be evaluated.

4.2.3.7

Transfer of Annual Catch Entitlements (ACE)

Amendment 13 did not authorize transfer of ACE between sectors, nor did it allow carry-over
from one fishing year to the next. This section adopts provisions for such transfers.
A sector can carry up to 10 percent of unused ACE forward into the next fishing year.
There are no restrictions on the nature of the transfer of ACE between sectors. The exchange of
ACE between two sectors is viewed as a private business arrangement. Sectors can seek
compensation (monetary or otherwise) when transferring ACE to another sector. Sectors are not
obligated to transfer unused ACE to a sector that needs additional ACE.
In addition, all or a portion of a sector’s ACE of any stock can be transferred to another sector.
This exchange can occur at any time during the fishing year and up to two weeks into the
following fishing year. The transfer does not become effective until it is approved by NMFS.
During the fishing year, a sector should project when its ACE will be exceeded and should cease
fishing operations prior to exceeding it. If the sector’s ACE is exceeded, the sector must cease
operations in that stock area until it can acquire additional ACE through a transfer to balance the
catch, and the sector also must comply with other overage penalties that may be applicable. A
sector can resume fishing in the stock area if it acquires more ACE.
These provisions do not provide for the permanent transfer of sector shares. The only method for
transferring sector shares is by moving permits between sectors, and this can only be
accomplished prior to the beginning of the fishing year.
Proposed ACE transfers will be referred to NMFS. The transfer is not considered authorized until
NMFS notifies both sectors. The NMFS review of a transfer request will be based on general
issues such as whether both sectors are complying with reporting or other administrative
requirements. The responsibility for ensuring that sufficient ACE is available to cover the transfer
is the responsibility of the sector manager. NMFS approval of a transfer does not absolve the
sector from managing its ACE.
Transfers of previous year’s ACE after the end of the fishing year will allow sectors to balance
accidental overages if other sectors hold unused ACE at the end of the year and are willing to
transfer that ACE to the sector with an overage. Should a sector be unable to acquire ACE from
another sector to balance an overage, the overage will be deducted from the next year’s ACE
allocation, and the sector may be subject to other penalties. Since ACE transfers may take place
after fishing has commenced and it will not be clear whether sectors are able to balance overages
by acquiring ACE until all transfers have been processed, 20% of each sector’s ACE allocation
for each stock will be held in reserve by NMFS until 61 days after the beginning of the fishing
year to ensure that sectors will have sufficient ACE to balance overages from the previous year.
Rationale: Allowing transfer of ACE provides flexibility for sectors to adjust their allocations to
account for unusual circumstances or to take advantage of other opportunities. For example, there
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

115

Proposed Action
Fishery Program Administration

may be instances were a sector does not have an allocation for a stock that has an unusual
distribution due to oceanographic conditions – without allowing ACE transfer, the sector may be
forced to discard this stock and may have to cease fishing because of the discards. Allowing the
exchanges to continue for a period after the end of the fishing year provides a limited opportunity
for a sector to quota balance in the instances that the ACE was inadvertently exceeded. This
provision is not intended to allow sectors to exceed their ACE.

4.2.3.8

Sector Participation in Special Management Programs

Amendment 13 did not establish guidelines for participation in Special Management Programs by
vessels that are in sectors. Sector participation in existing special management programs is
described below. If additional program are adopted, specific provisions for sector participation
will be defined. In all cases, sector vessels cannot participate in a special management program
unless the sector has ACE (allocated or acquired) for the stocks caught in this SAP in order to
participate. The ACE must be sufficient to account for the expected catch in the SAP.

4.2.3.8.1 Special Management Program Reporting Requirements
The Regional Administrator is authorized to remove specific reporting requirements for sector
vessels participating in special management programs if it is determined the requirements are
unnecessary.
Rationale: Since sectors are subject to additional reporting requirements in order to monitor the
catch of ACE, it may not be necessary for sector vessels to also comply with reporting
requirements for special management programs.

4.2.3.8.2 Eastern U.S. Canada Haddock SAP
For a sector exempt from DAS, the only benefit to this SAP is that it allows fishing in the far
northern tip of CAII. The following provisions apply for sector participation:
(1) Sector vessel participating in the SAP must follow reporting requirements.
(2) All catch applies against the sector’s allocated TACs for each stock, including those
specific to the Eastern U.S./Canada area, but not against any incidental catch TACs.
(3) Sectors can fish in the corner of CAII (within SAP boundaries) during the season of
the SAP.
(4) There are no specific gear requirements for sectors. Since the sectors will have hard
TACs on most species, gear requirements designed to maximize catch of the target
species may not be necessary. Presumably sectors will adjust their operation to maximize
their benefits from their available TACs.
Rationale: Because this SAP allows access to only a small part of CAII, and sectors are expected
to have a hard TAC on their catches of cod and haddock in the Eastern U.S./Canada area, there is
little need to restrict sector participation in this SAP to specific gears.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

116

Proposed Action
Fishery Program Administration

4.2.3.8.3 Closed Area II Yellowtail Flounder SAP
This SAP has a limit on the catch per trip of target species, limit on the total number of trips,
limits on the number of trips that can be taken each month, gear requirements, and a cod catch
limit.
(1) Sectors are subject to reporting requirements (unless waived by the Regional
Administrator as described in section 4.2.3.8.1).
(2) Sectors are not subject to the cod, haddock, or yellowtail flounder trip limits, or limits
on the number or frequency of trips.
(3) Sectors are subject to the gear requirement. This SAP is designed to target flounder
and it would not be appropriate to allow sectors to use gear designed to target other
species in this SAP. The PDT recognizes this may seem inconsistent with the advice for
the Eastern U.S./Canada SAP, but note that unlike in that SAP, the access area is much
larger and the sector’s catch of the target species (GB YTF) is not limited by a specific
sector Eastern U.S./Canada area TAC.
Rationale: Unlike the Eastern U.S./Canada Haddock SAP, the CAII yellowtail flounder SAP
provides access to a large area in CAII. Non-sector vessels are limited in the number of trips they
can take each month, in the gear that can be used, and the amount of the target species that can be
landed each trip. If sector vessels are not subject to the same provisions, they would have an
unfair advantage in this SAP.

4.2.3.8.4 Closed Area I Hook Gear Haddock SAP
This SAP provides an opportunity to target GB haddock within CAI. The SAP already has
provisions that describe requirements for sectors and additional provisions are not proposed (but
see section 4.2.7.2 for SAP changes).

4.2.3.9

Interaction of Sector with Common Pool Vessels

This section modifies the provisions that relate to the interaction between sector and non-sector
(common pool) vessels.
As noted above, sectors will be assigned an ACE (share of total TAC) based on landings history
or a combination of landings history and vessel capacity. While it is appropriate for changes in
stock condition to affect the amount of fish that the share represents, sectors should not suffer if
other sectors, or common pool vessels, exceed TACs and create a need for mortality reductions.
If a hard TAC allocated to a sector is not exceeded in a given fishing year, the sector’s allocation
of a TAC will not be reduced for the following fishing year as a result of an overage of a TAC by
non-compliant sectors or by non-sector groundfish fishing vessels.
If a sector exceeds its ACE, the sector’s ACE will be reduced in the following year and the sector
may be subject to enforcement action. If the sector exceeds its ACE repeatedly, other
enforcement sanctions may be applied by NMFS. These could include a permanent reduction in
the sector’s share or a withdrawal of the sector’s authorization to operate. A permanent reduction
in a sector’s share will follow any vessels that leave the sector.
If declining stock conditions result in a need to reduce fishing mortality, and all sectors and
common pool vessels have operated within TAC limits, a sector's share will not be changed, but
the amount this share represents may be due to reduced overall TACs. If stock conditions
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

117

Proposed Action
Fishery Program Administration

improve, and a sector stays within its quota while other sectors do not, the sector will receive a
temporary increase in share equal to the amount that other sectors exceeded their quota.
Some multispecies management measures that apply to common pool vessels will also apply
to any vessel in a sector, and these measures are listed below. Other groundfish measures that
are not included in the list below may be altered through a sector's operations plan. In its
operations plan, a sector should specify any additional multispecies management measures that
should not apply to the sector. Exemptions and/or modifications to other management measures
must be approved by NMFS. The following list may be modified through a framework
adjustment. Sectors cannot request exemption from the management measures included in this
list. Current measures that will apply to both sector and common pool vessels include:
•
•
•
•

Year round closed areas
Permitting restrictions (vessel upgrades, etc.)
Gear restrictions designed to minimize habitat impacts (roller gear restrictions, etc.)
Reporting requirements (not including DAS reporting requirements)

Similarly, all sectors will be universally exempt from some multispecies management measures.
A sector must request changes or exemptions to other multispecies management measures in its
operations plan, as appropriate. The following list of sector exemptions may be modified in the
future through a framework adjustment. With the implementation of this amendment, all
sectors will be exempt from:
•

•

•
•

•

Trip limits on stocks for which a sector receives an allocation (all stocks except
halibut, ocean pout, SNE/MA winter flounder(unless allocated in a future action),
Atlantic wolffish, and windowpane flounder);
Seasonal closed areas (note that this does not include the Gulf of Maine “rolling”
closures; at present the only seasonal closure is in May, on Georges Bank; specific
rolling closure exemptions are listed below); and
Groundfish DAS restrictions;
While using a haddock separator trawl, Ruhle trawl, or other authorized trawl gear on
Georges Bank sectors are exempt from using a six and a half inch cod-end; when
using this exemption they must use a six inch mesh codend. This measure was not
included in the draft amendment; it was adopted in response to comments.
Sector vessels are exempt from all GOM rolling closures with the exception of those
listed below (see also Figure 1). The Groundfish PDT will review and analyze the
existing rolling closures and determine which areas should remain closed to protect
cod spawning aggregations. As a result of this analysis, any adjustments necessary to
adequately protect concentrations of spawning cod would be adjusted in either a
management action or the biennial specification process. This measure was not
included in the draft amendment; it was adopted by the Council in response to public
comments.
April: Blocks 124, 125, 132, 133
May: Blocks 132, 133, 138
June: 139, 140, 145, 146, 147, 152

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

118

Proposed Action
Fishery Program Administration

These universal exemptions only apply to groundfish fishing regulations. They do not apply to
requirements implemented by other management plans. For example, certain categories of
monkfish permits must use a groundfish DAS when using a monkfish DAS. That requirement
continues until or unless the monkfish FMP changes it. If vessel with a monkfish Category C or
D permit is in a groundfish sector and wants to use a monkfish DAS and land the monkfish trip
limit associated with using a monkfish DAS, then it must use a groundfish DAS while that is
required by the monkfish FMP. The same vessel can instead not use either a groundfish or
monkfish DAS and be limited to the monkfish trip limit for vessels not fishing on a monkfish
DAS.
Sectors will not be required to adhere to additional mortality controls adopted by this action, such
as additional seasonal and year round closed areas, gear requirements and/or restricted gear areas,
DAS reductions, and differential DAS counting, since mortality by sector vessels is controlled by
a hard TAC. Note that this applies only to additional requirements, and does not automatically
exempt the sectors from mortality controls adopted in previous actions that are not listed in 4.3.2.
For example, sectors will be required to adhere to those GOM rolling closures that are not
included in the list of universal exemptions (unless a specific exemption from the remaining
closures is granted when the sector’s operations plan is approved)
Rationale: This section clarifies the exemptions that apply to all sectors, minimizing the
administrative burden for sectors since they do not have to request these exemptions, and for
NMFS since the agency will not have to evaluate the universal exemptions.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

119

Figure 1 – GOM rolling closures for which sectors do not receive an automatic exemption

Draft Northeast Multispecies Amendment 16
October 14, 2009

4.2.3.10 Movement between Sectors
No changes are proposed to this element of the sector allocation process. Each sector will set its
own rules on movement into and out of the sector. This section is included here solely to identify
all sector provisions in one location and this No Action option is the only one being considered.
Rationale: By not mandating the commitment time to a sector and allowing the sectors to set their
own rules, the sector might be more successful in the long-term. This success will be realized,
while working within their allocation (hard TAC), the group will be largely self-regulating. A
code of conduct for all sectors should be developed by the Council or by industry with Council
approval.

4.2.4 Reporting Requirements
This measure proposed to add additional requirements for limited access groundfish vessels to
facilitate the monitoring of Annual Catch Limits (ACLs) and sectors.

4.2.4.1

Area-specific Reporting Requirements

This action adopts Option 2 from the draft amendment, but was modified to be consistent with
other measures adopted. The measures in this section apply to all limited access groundfish
vessels, whether fishing in the common pool or as a member of a sector. They are in addition to
any specific requirements applicable to either common pool or sector vessels that are adopted in
other sections.
Four broad reporting areas will be established (see Figure 2). These areas were determined so that
all groundfish catch in the area can be allocated to the appropriate stock. All limited access
groundfish vessels required to use VMS will be required to make a declaration via VMS at the
beginning of a trip on whether they intend to fish in one broad reporting area or multiple
reporting areas. This declaration must be made prior to departing on every groundfish fishing trip.
If a vessel operator reports that he is only going to fish in one area, the vessel cannot fish in
multiple reporting areas on that trip, but can fish in multiple areas on subsequent trips. Vessels
that notify NMFS they intend to fish in multiple areas will be required to submit a daily report to
NMFS that reports kept groundfish catch by broad reporting area (other reporting periods may be
authorized by NMFS). There is no restriction on the number of areas that can be fished on such
trips, or on the number of times a vessel can enter or exit any area, as long as accurate daily catch
reports are submitted by VMS. NMFS will specify the content of these reports, including the
elements of catch that must be reported (kept and/or discarded catch).
In order to link this information on area fished and catch to dealer data, each limited access
groundfish vessel operator (whether fishing in one or multiple broad reporting areas) will be
required to report a VTR serial number, or other appropriate identifier, for the trip via VMS at a
time specified by NMFS. The vessel operator must also provide this VTR serial number to the
dealer or dealers purchasing the fish from that trip, as well as to the observer if the trip is
observed. The dealer will include this serial number when reporting purchases to NMFS. NMFS
will provide directions for reporting this serial number for those vessels that fish in multiple
statistical areas or use multiple gears on the same trip (vessels are required to submit a new VTR
page for each statistical area fished or gear used).
Draft Northeast Multispecies Amendment 16
October 14, 2009

Proposed Action
Fishery Program Administration

To the extent possible, NMFS will develop procedures for these new requirements that reduce
unnecessary duplication.
Rationale: The implementation of ACLs and the possible implementation of additional sectors
places increased importance on timely reporting of catch (kept and discarded) information. The
current reporting system relies on submission of paper VTRs to identify area fished. There are
delays in receiving and processing these VTRs that make them unusable for timely monitoring of
either sector catch or ACLs, which are stock specific. In order to improve the timeliness of
reporting, additional requirements will be adopted. Note that these requirements do not replace
the existing requirements for dealer and vessel reporting. Amendment 13 included language that
authorized the future use of electronic reporting systems as a replacement for the VTR. This
option does not preclude that possibility in the future, but does not replace VTRs with this
proposal. This option also does not replace reporting requirements for special management
programs or fishing in the U.S./Canada area.
GOM Area/Reporting Area 1
Point
Latitude
Longitude
G1
(1 )
(1 )
G2
43° 58’ N.
67° 22’ W.
G3
42° 53.1’ N.
67° 44.4’ W.
G4
42° 31’ N.
67° 28.1’ W.
CII3
42° 22’ N.
67° 20’ W.
G6
42° 20’ N.
67° 20’ W.
G10
42° 20’ N.
70° 00’ W.
G9
42° 00’ N.
(2)
1
The intersection of the shoreline and the U.S.-Canada Maritime Boundary.
2
The intersection of the Cape Cod, MA, coastline and 42°00' N. lat.
Inshore GB Area/Reporting Area 2
Point
Latitude
G9
42° 00’ N.
G10
42° 20’ N.
IGB1
42° 20’ N.
IGB2
41° 00’ N.
IGB3
41° 00’ N.
IGB4
41° 10’ N.
IGB5
41° 10’ N.
IGB6
41° 20’ N.
IGB7
41° 20’ N.
G12
(2)
1
The intersection of the Cape Cod, MA, coastline and 42°00' N. lat.
2
South facing shoreline of Cape Cod.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

122

Longitude
(1)
70° 00’ W.
68° 50’ W.
68° 50’ W.
69° 30’ W.
69° 30’ W.
69° 50’ W.
69° 50’ W.
70° 00’ W.
70° 00’ W.

Proposed Action
Fishery Program Administration

Offshore GB Area/Reporting Area 3
Point
Latitude
IGB1
42° 20’ N.
CII3
42° 22’ N.
SNE1
40° 24’ N.
SNE2
(1 )
SNE3
39° 50’ N.
SNE4
39° 50’ N.
IGB2
41° 00’ N.
IGB1
42° 20’ N.
1
The U.S.-Canada Maritime Boundary as it intersects with the EEZ.
SNE/MA Area/Reporting Area 4
Point
Latitude
G12
(1)
IGB7
41° 20’ N.
IGB6
41° 20’ N.
IGB5
41° 10’ N.
IGB4
41° 10’ N.
IGB3
41° 00’ N.
IGB2
41° 00’ N.
SNE4
39° 50’ N.
SNE3
39° 50’ N.
SNE2
(2)
1
South facing shoreline of Cape Cod.
2
The U.S.-Canada Maritime Boundary as it intersects with the EEZ.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

123

Longitude
68° 50’ W.
67° 20’ W.
65° 43’ W.
69° 00’ W.
69° 00’ W.
68° 50’ W.
68° 50’ W.
68° 50’ W.

Longitude
70° 00’ W.
70° 00’ W.
69° 50’ W.
69° 50’ W.
69° 30’ W.
69° 30’ W.
68° 50’ W.
68° 50’ W.
69° 00’ W.
69° 00’ W.

Proposed Action
Fishery Program Administration

Figure 2 – Proposed reporting areas

4.2.4.2

Accounting for Discards for Non-Sector Vessels

This action adopts Option 3 from the draft amendment. The requirement to monitor ACLs means
that catch (landings and discards) must be estimated. Measures to monitor discards by sector
vessels are described in section 4.2.3.5. For non-sector vessels in the commercial fishery, a
discard rate, by gear, will be determined and applied to the landings for each trip. NMFS may
apply this discard estimate in one of two ways: either based on the total landings of a stock, by
gear, or on a trip-by-trip basis. The former approach is easier to administer but does not attribute
discards for each vessel on an individual basis. This is not as important as for sector vessels, but if
this is not tracked it may complicate any future allocation scheme that is based on total catch.
Discards will be typically applied only for those combinations of species and gear where discards
are expected.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

124

Proposed Action
Fishery Program Administration

Table 19 – Discard estimates will be applied to the species/gear combinations show
Gear
Species
Trawl
All
Gillnet
Cod, haddock, pollock, white hake,
yellowtail flounder, winter flounder, witch
flounder, American plaice, redfish, Atlantic
wolffish
Longline
Cod, haddock, pollock, white hake, redfish,
Atlantic wolffish

A discard rate will be calculated for each stock and gear based on observer data from the previous
year by vessels that are not in sectors. If NMFS determines that there are insufficient data to
estimate discard rates at this fine a scale, the fleet-wide stock and gear discard rate will be used
for those stock-gear combinations. If NMFS determines there is sufficient data to determine inseason discard rates, such data will be used in place of an assumed rate that is based on the
previous year’s data.
Rationale: ACLs are based on total catch (landings and discards) for most stocks. Discards need
to be accounted for in order to determine whether ACLs have been caught and AMs need to be
implemented. This option uses a discard rate to inflate landings to provide an estimate of total
catch that can be updated on a weekly basis (the frequency of submission for dealer reports). This
provides a timely estimate of in-season catches that can be used to monitor ACLs. In-season
monitoring estimates will be compared to catch estimates determined by the assessments to verify
that this practice is not mis-estimating discards.

4.2.5 Allocation of Groundfish to the Commercial and Recreational
Groundfish Fisheries
This action adopts Option 2 of the draft amendment. An allocation will be made of certain
regulated groundfish stocks to the commercial and recreational components of the fishery. For
this action, an allocation will be determined after accounting for state waters catches taken
outside of the FMP. An allocation will not be made in the case of stocks that are not fully
harvesting the ACL. An allocation will also not be made if the recreational harvest, after
accounting for state waters catches outside the management plan, is less than five percent of the
removals.
In those cases that meet the requirements to establish an allocation, a defined time period will be
used to calculate the allocation. The time periods that are being used for GOM cod and GOM
haddock are shown in Table 20. The proportion allocated to these fisheries will be determined
using the time periods shown in the table based on the data that is used in GARM III assessments.
When possible, the shares will be determined by using the numbers of fish in the years caught (as
used by the assessment: harvested, landed, or discarded) by each component. The shares
determined in this manner will be applied to the ACL to determine the weight of catch available
for each component. If the number of fish caught by each component is not available, the shares
will be calculated based on weight. The proportion for each year will be calculated, and then the
average proportion over the time period will be the share for each component of the fishery. The
proportions will be reviewed consistent with the periodic assessment cycle, and if determined
necessary, changes can be implemented through a framework action. Any changes that are
adopted will not affect the implementation of accountability measures based on proportions that
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

125

Proposed Action
Fishery Program Administration

were in effect at the time of the catches. This table also lists an estimate of the allocations that
will result – this estimate has not yet been adjusted for state waters catches. Allocations are not
being considered at present for SNE/MA winter flounder, GOM winter flounder, pollock, or GB
cod, because current catches do not meet the standard for an allocation. Allocations may be
defined for these stocks in the future.

Table 20 – Proposed time periods for calculating the recreational and commercial share of the
groundfish ACL and preliminary estimate of recreational allocation that results.
Stock

Years

Preliminary Estimate

GOM Cod

2001 - 2006

33.7%

GOM Haddock

2001 - 2006

27.5%

Rationale: By allocating certain groundfish stocks to the commercial and recreational components
of the fishery, the design of management measures can be tailored to the components that are
responsible should mortality targets be exceeded. GOM winter flounder, SNE/MA winter
flounder, pollock, and GB cod are not allocated because at present the federal waters catch of
these stocks is less than 5 percent of removals. Catches will be monitored and an allocation may
be considered in the future if it exceeds 5 percent.

4.2.6 Changes to the DAS Transfer and DAS Leasing Programs
4.2.6.1

DAS Transfer Program Conservation Tax

This action adopts Option 2 from the draft amendment. The Council will eliminating the
conservation tax on DAS transfers, currently set at 20 percent. No adjustment will be made for
permits previously charged the conservation tax.
Rationale: There has been limited use of the DAS transfer program. Modifying or eliminating the
conservation tax may encourage use.

4.2.6.2 Eligibility of Permits in the Confirmation of Permit History (CPH)
Category to Participate in the DAS Leasing and Transfer Programs
Confirmation of permit history (CPH) permits do not need to be activated in order participate in
the DAS leasing program (this is consistent with a change proposed to the eligibility of these
permits to join sectors that is proposed in section 5.2.3.3.1). In addition, these permits do not need
to be activated prior to participation in the DAS transfer Program. This was Option 5 in the draft
amendment.
Rationale: Under regulations implementing Amendment 13, permits in the CPH category cannot
lease DAS. The rationale for this provision is unclear, but appears to relate to the idea that CPH
permits did not contribute to fishing mortality during the period prior to Amendment 13 and thus
should not contribute via DAS leases after the amendment’s adoption. CPH is not a permanent
category, however, and permits can be activated at any time. Vessel replacement regulations
allow the permits to be placed on any vessel, including skiffs, at any time. This prohibition thus
means only that there are administrative barriers to having a CPH permit lease DAS. This option
acknowledges the reality of this situation and removes the administrative barriers to having a
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

126

Proposed Action
Fishery Program Administration

CPH permit lease DAS. It also clarifies that a permit need not be activated prior to participating
in a DAS transfer.

4.2.6.3

Removal of the DAS Leasing Cap

This action removes the cap on leased DAS that was adopted in Amendment 13. There is no limit
on the number of DAS that a permit can lease from other permits. In that action, vessels were
limited to leasing the number of DAS equal to the vessel’s allocation for FY 2001.
This measure was not included in the draft amendment and was added in response to public
comments.
Rationale: The DAS leasing program was adopted in Amendment 13 in part as a mitigation
measure. By allowing the temporary exchange of DAS between permits, DAS leasing provided
an opportunity for vessels to acquire enough DAS to operate profitably. In addition, permits with
too few DAS to fish for groundfish could receive some benefits by leasing DAS to other vessels.
With continued reductions in DAS – including the proposed 50 percent reduction in this action the leasing cap adopted in Amendment 13 imposes a barrier that prevents vessels from acquiring
enough DAS to be profitable. Removing the cap will facilitate effective use of the leasing
program and will provide the ability for some vessels to acquire enough DAS to be profitable.

4.2.7 Special Management Programs
4.2.7.1

Incidental Catch TACs

Incidental catch TACs were first adopted in FW 40A in order to limit the catch of non-target
stocks while vessels were using Category B DAS. As a result of groundfish assessments
completed in August 2005 the incidental catch TACs were revised. TACs were added for GB
yellowtail flounder and GB winter flounder. The TACs for GOM cod, CC/GOM yellowtail
flounder, SNE/MA yellowtail flounder, and SNE/MA winter flounder were reduced from two
percent of the total target TAC to one percent of the total target TAC.
Option 1 – Revised Incidental Catch TACs
Because of changes in stock status, as well as the possible addition of additional SAP provisions,
the specific stocks subject to incidental catch TACs and the allocations to SAPs are revised as
provided below (Table 21). Incidental catch TACs will be based on the ACL for a stock.
GB yellowtail flounder and GB cod are transboundary stocks, and management is coordinated
with Canada. The U.S. and Canadian shares of the TAC for these stocks are determined annually
and cannot be predicted in advance. Values will be calculated in the future and announced
through procedures consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act. Since the U.S. /CA TAC
only applies to part of the GB cod stock, the incidental catch TAC for this stock is calculated as:
0.02 X (Total GB cod target TAC - CA GB cod TAC)
The incidental catch TACs in this program are calculated based on the non-sector commercial
fishery ACL (see section 4.2.1) for the stock, and not based on the total TAC as in the past. This
is to make the program consistent with the ACLs. Specific incidental catch TACs are not

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

127

Proposed Action
Fishery Program Administration

identified in this table for sector participation in SAPs, but are implied by the allocation process
described in 4.2.3.3.3.
Table 21 – Proposed incidental catch TACs for major stocks of concern (mt). TACs are for the
fishing year. TACs shown are metric tons, live weight. Note: GB cod and GB yellowtail flounder
TAC is determined annually and cannot be estimated in advance. Values are dependent on ACLs,
which have not yet been determined.

GB cod
GOM cod
GB Yellowtail
CC/GOM yellowtail
SNE/MA Yellowtail
Plaice
Witch Flounder
SNE/MA Winter
Flounder
GB Winter Flounder
White Hake
Pollock

Percentage of
Total TAC
Two
One
Two
One
One
Five
Five
One

2009

Incidental Catch TAC
2010
2011

Two
Two
Two

Table 22 - Proposed allocation of incidental catch TACs for major stocks of concern to Category B
DAS programs (shown as percentage of the incidental catch TAC)

GOM cod
GB cod
CC/GOM yellowtail
Plaice
White Hake
SNE/MA Yellowtail
SNE/MA Winter Flounder
Witch Flounder
GB Yellowtail
GB Winter Flounder
Pollock

4.2.7.2

Category B
(regular) DAS
Program
100%
50%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
50%
50%
50%

CAI Hook Gear
SAP
NA
16%
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
16%

Eastern
US/CA
Haddock SAP
NA
34%
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
50%
50%
34%

Southern CAII
Haddock SAP

Closed Area I Hook Gear Haddock SAP Revisions

The CAI Hook Gear Haddock SAP provides an opportunity to target GB haddock within the
boundaries of CAI. Changes are being considered to the area and the season, and to the provisions
adopted to mitigate competition between sector and common pool participants. This action adopts
Option 2 from the draft amendment. This action revises the season, area, and other provisions of
the CAI Hook Gear Haddock SAP.
Season: The SAP would be extended to nine months, May 1 through January 31. Fishing
would be allowed in the SAP during the May seasonal closure on GB. Sector and nonNortheast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

128

2012

Proposed Action
Fishery Program Administration

sector vessels can fish at any time during the SAP season – the current division of the
season into sector and non-sector participation periods would be eliminated.
Area: The area of the SAP would be expanded to include the northern portion of CAI, as
shown in Figure 3. The coordinates for the revised SAP area would be:
41-09 N
41-30 N
41-30 N
41-04 N

68-30 W
68-30 W
69-23 W
(Western Boundary of CAI)
41-04N 69-01.1W (Western Boundary of CAI)

TAC: The SAP TAC for GB haddock would not longer be split between sector and nonsector vessels.
Rationale: SAP participants have not harvested the available catch. The extension of the season
and area is intended to provide more opportunities to harvest haddock in this SAP. The extended
season and area make it unlikely that the conflicts between sector and non-sector participants will
be an issue. The Proposed Action adopts a NMFS suggested correction to the coordinates for the
SAP.
Figure 3 - Current CAI Hook Gear Haddock SAP area (left) and proposed area (right)

4.2.7.3

Reauthorization of the Eastern U.S./Canada Haddock SAP

This SAP provides an opportunity to target GB haddock in the Eastern U.S./Canada area,
including a small portion of CAII. This action reauthorizes the SAP and continues it indefinitely
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

129

Proposed Action
Fishery Program Administration

unless changed by a future Council action, or unless closed for the season by the Regional
Administrator consistent with the Administrative Procedures Act and SAP regulations (Option 2
of the draft amendment). All provisions of the SAP remain with one change:
Gear: Trawl vessels fishing in the SAP can use codends with a minimum mesh size of six
inch square or diamond mesh. They are still required to use net configurations required
for the SAP.

4.2.7.4

Closed Area II Yellowtail Flounder SAP

This action modifies the existing CAII yellowtail flounder SAP to provide an opportunity to
target GB haddock in the SAP area even when the SAP is not opened to allow targeting of GB
yellowtail flounder (Option 2 of the draft amendment). The SAP provisions are modified as
follows:
•

•

When the SAP is opened to allow targeting of GB yellowtail flounder, the current SAP
provisions apply. These include gear requirements, limits on the number of trips, limits
on the number of trips a vessel can make each month, season, limits on the yellowtail
flounder catch per trip, and possession limits for cod. With this action, the eliminator
trawl is authorized for this SAP when it is open to target yellowtail flounder.
When the SAP is not open to allow targeting of GB yellowtail flounder (either because
there is insufficient GB yellowtail flounder TAC to open the SAP at all, or the SAP was
opened but the number of trips allowed has been reached), the SAP is opened to target
GB haddock subject to the provisions in this section.

Haddock Season: The haddock season is August 1 through January 31 if the SAP is not opened to
target GB yellowtail flounder.
Opening Criteria: This SAP can be opened for targeting haddock only if the Eastern GB haddock
TAC has not been caught. All catches in this SAP will be applied against the Eastern GB haddock
TAC for either common-pool vessels or individual sectors. If sectors receive an allocation of
Eastern GB haddock, only catches of haddock by non-sector vessels will be applied to this TAC.
If sectors receive ACE for Eastern GB haddock (see section 5.2.3.3.3), they can fish in this SAP
during the haddock season as long as they have ACE remaining for the stocks caught in this SAP,
even if the SAP is closed to non-sector vessels.
Trip Limits: There are no haddock trip limits unless trip limits are implemented for the entire GB
haddock resource. Trip limits for other species are the same as those in effect when using gear
subject to the gear performance standards.
No discard provision and DAS flips: A vessel fishing in this SAP cannot discard legal-sized
regulated NE multispecies with the exception of species whose possession is prohibited. Vessels
may discard Atlantic halibut exceeding the one fish per trip possession limit. If a vessel exceeds
an applicable trip limit, it must flip to a Category A DAS and must exit the SAP.
Gear requirements: At times when the SAP is open to target GB yellowtail flounder, vessels must
use the gear authorized for that SAP (flounder net, haddock separator trawl, and eliminator trawl).
When open only to target haddock, the flounder net is not authorized and trawl vessels must use a
haddock separator trawl, eliminator trawl, or hook gear. Additional gear can be approved by the
Regional Administrator using the process established to approve additional gear for the Eastern
U.S./Canada Haddock SAP and the Category B (regular) DAS Program.
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

130

Proposed Action
Fishery Program Administration

Rationale: Catches of GB haddock have been well below target catches in recent years, and the
U.S. Eastern GB haddock TAC has never been harvested. During the CAII Yellowtail Flounder
SAP opening in 2004 about one million pounds of haddock were landed on 319 trips into the SAP
area while targeting flounder. This proposed change uses gear requirements to avoid catching
yellowtail flounder when the SAP is not open to that gear.

4.2.7.5

SNE/MA Winter Flounder SAP

Option 1- Suspension of SNE/MA Winter Flounder SAP
The SNE/MA winter flounder SAP described in 50 CFR 648.85(b)(4) is suspended until stock
conditions warrant its re-implementation.
Rationale: The existing SAP allows landings of small amounts of winter flounder without using a
groundfish DAS. It was primarily designed to reduce discards of winter flounder in the fluke
fishery. With the adoption of a rebuilding program for winter flounder, and pending prohibitions
on landing SNE/MA winter flounder, it is no longer appropriate to allow any increased effort on
this stock outside of the groundfish plan.

4.2.7.5.1 Program Revisions Due to Updated Stock Status
This was Option 2 in the draft amendment. Because of the results of GARM III, this program is
revised to focus Category B DAS effort on three stocks: GB haddock, GOM haddock, and
redfish. In addition, because pollock is overfished, catches of pollock in this program are limited
to the incidental catch limit of 100 lbs./DAS with a maximum of 1,000 lbs./trip.
Trawl gear requirements: Vessels fishing in the Category B (regular) DAS program in the
GB cod stock area, and required to use approved trawl gear such as the haddock separator
trawl, the Ruhle trawl, or other approved trawl gear, may use a codend with a minimum
mesh size of six-inch diamond or square mesh.
Rationale: Allowing the use of six-inch mesh in trawl gear designed to target haddock will
increase haddock catches while not having an impact on other stocks.

4.2.7.6

Approval of Additional Gear

Several programs in the multispecies fishery impose specific gear requirements. For example,
trawl vessels fishing in the U.S./Canada area are required to use specific trawl gear
configurations; trawl vessels fishing in the Category B (regular) DAS program are required to use
a separator trawl or Ruhle trawl, and similar requirements apply to the Eastern U.S./Canada
Haddock SAP. Some of these programs allow the Regional Administrator to authorize additional
gear after determining that it meets specific requirements, but this authority is at times limited to
in-season authorization that must be renewed annually.
This measure adopts Option 2 from the draft amendment. It authorizes the Regional
Administrator to permanently approve additional selective gear for use in any program that
requires the use of selective gear. This includes both existing programs and future programs.
Rationale: This measure simplifies administration by removing the necessity for NMFS to reauthorize the use of selective gear on an annual basis. If future programs are adopted that require
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

131

Proposed Action
Fishery Program Administration

the use of selective gear t he assumption will be that the Regional Administrator can authorize
additional gear unless this authority is rescinded.

4.2.8 Periodic Adjustment Process
The periodic adjustment process is modified as proposed by Option 2in the draft amendment:
Measures implemented in this action can be adjusted via framework actions consistent with the
periodic adjustment process. These additional measures include, but are not limited to:
•
•
•

Changes to the ACL and AM process or implementation
Modifications to sector administration policies
Reporting requirements

The draft amendment proposed to modify Groundfish Plan Development Team membership. This
language was removed from the amendment; PDT membership will be consistent with Council
policies.

4.2.9 Simultaneous Possession of a Limited Access Multispecies and Scallop
Permit
This action adopts Option 2 from the draft amendment. A vessel may possess a limited access
multispecies permit and a limited access scallop permit at the same time, even if the scallop
dredge vessel did not qualify for a limited access multispecies vessel combination permit. This
change allows a limited access scallop vessel to acquire a limited access multispecies permit, and
also allows vessels that possess a limited access scallop trawl permit and a limited access
multispecies permit to change the scallop trawl permit to a scallop dredge permit (if consistent
with all provisions of the Atlantic Sea Scallop FMP) without surrendering the limited access
multispecies permit.
Most limited access scallop permit holders that do not hold a limited access multispecies
combination permit also hold an open access scallop Northeast multispecies possession limit
permit. This open access permit allows the vessel to land a limited amount of Northeast
multispecies caught while fishing for scallops. Should such a scallop vessel acquire a limited
access multispecies permit, the multispecies landings history from the open access permit does
not transfer to the acquired limited access permit. As long as only limited access multispecies
permits are eligible for membership in sectors, and potential sector contributions in the
multispecies fishery are based wholly or in part on landings history, when a vessel obtains both a
scallop and limited access multispecies permit only multispecies landings history acquired from
the limited access multispecies permit is considered when calculating potential sector share
contributions.
Rationale: Fishing vessels represent a substantial capital investment. In both the scallop and
multispecies fisheries, conservation controls limit the efficient use of these resources. If the
current restriction that prevents a vessel owner from having a limited access groundfish permit
and a limited access scallop permit on the same vessel is lifted, vessel owner’s will be able to
increase the return on their investments by participating in both fisheries. This will also provide
vessel owner increased flexibility to conduct fishing operations in a profitable way, moving
between the two fisheries as opportunities develop.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

132

Proposed Action
Measures to Meet Mortality Objectives

The reason that only the multispecies landing history can be used to calculate the combined
permit’s potential sector contribution is that only these landings are used in the initial, one-time
calculation of PSC for the fishery. If open access landings by the scallop permit were added, then
each time permits from the two fisheries were combined the potential sector contribution for all
permits would need to be recalculated. Note that a permit known as a combination multispecies
permit, issued to a small number of scallop dredge vessels, is considered a limited access
multispecies permit and could contribute landings history to a vessel’s potential sector
contribution.

4.2.10 Catch History
With the adoption of this action, no vessel, permit, sector, or component (commercial, private
recreational, party/charter, etc.) of the fishery will accrue groundfish catch history as a result of
fishing activity that takes place after implementation of the amendment. While the Council
recognizes that in the future the Council may overturn this measure, this will require an explicit
action.
Rationale: With the adoption of the PSC alternatives for commercial groundfish sectors,
accountability measures, and recreational/commercial allocations, there is a desire to
“freeze”catch history. This is considered important to facilitate the transfer of ACE within and
between sectors. In addition, it is viewed as a desirable step should the impacts of the adopted
AMs prove unequal for different components of the fishery. Adopting this measure is problematic
because it is always possible a future Council may overturn it. Nevertheless, the Council believes
it important to explicitly make this statement and force any future Council to carefully consider
any decision to modify this policy. It is the Council’s intent that catch history for all groundfish
fishing vessels (including both the recreational and commercial components of the fishery) is
essentially frozen at implementation of Amendment 16. This measure was not considered in the
draft document but was adopted in response to comments received. This measure only applies to
catch history and does not change the treatment of DAS history for leased DAS that was adopted
in Amendment 13.

4.3

Measures to Meet Mortality Objectives

4.3.1 Introduction
4.3.2 Commercial Fishery Measures
In this Proposed Action, measures in existence in FY 2008 continue unless changed by this
action.

4.3.2.1 Non-sector Vessels Option 3A – 24 hour clock, Restricted Gear
Areas
This action eliminates differential DAS counting areas, reduces Category A DAS by 50 percent
from the FW 42 allocations, and counts all DAS in 24-hour increments (i.e. 6 hours is counted as
one DAS, 25 hours is counted as two DAS, etc.). The category A/Category B DAS split that
results is 27.5%/72.5% from each permit’s Amendment 13 baseline. Most other current measures
remain, including seasonal and rolling closures and gear requirements.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

133

Proposed Action
Measures to Meet Mortality Objectives

Impact on Monkfish Category C and D vessels: Vessels with monkfish Category C and D permits
are generally required to use a groundfish DAS when using a monkfish DAS. The groundfish
DAS will be counted at full 24-hour DAS rate as described in this section. As a result, the
vessel’s groundfish DAS may be used before the vessel uses all of its monkfish DAS. Once the
groundfish allocation is used the vessel cannot use its monkfish DAS. If a vessel’s groundfish
DAS allocation is less than its monkfish DAS allocation the vessel is given monkfish only DAS
in the amount equivalent to that vessel’s annual monkfish allocation minus its annual allocation
of NE multispecies. This provision does not apply to different DAS counting rates – using the
groundfish DAS at a higher rate than the monkfish DAS does not entitle the vessel to additional
monkfish only DAS. Using groundfish DAS in 24-hour increments does not, at present, entitle a
vessel to use monkfish-only DAS.
The following trip limits would be implemented for fishing on a Category A DAS. All other trip
limits while fishing on a Category A DAS would be eliminated. This measure does not change
the authority of the Regional Administrator to impose trip limits as necessary under the
provisions implementing the U.S./Canada Resource Sharing Understanding. Under those
regulations, the Regional Administrator specifies the trip limit for GB yellowtail flounder. In all
cases, only one landing limit can be landed in any twenty-four hour period. If a vessel fishes in
more than one area, the most restrictive trip limit for a species applies for the entire trip.
Cod: 2,000 lbs./DAS; maximum 12,000 lbs/trip in GOM, 20,000 lbs/trip GB; with the
exception of the Eastern U.S./Canada area, where the Regional Administrator will specify
the appropriate trip limit at the beginning of the fishing year (the default trip limit for this
area remains 500 lbs./DAS, up to a maximum of 5,000 lbs./trip).
Handgear A Permits (HA Permits): Consistent with the automatic adjustment in
landing limits for this category adopted in A13, the landing limit for cod is increased to
750 lbs./trip. The automatic adjustment mechanism is retained.
Handgear B Permits (HB permits): Consistent with the automatic adjustment in
landing limits for this category adopted in A13, the landing limit for GOM cod is
increased to 200 lbs./trip. The automatic adjustment mechanism is retained.
CC/GOM Yellowtail flounder: 250 lbs./ DAS up to a maximum of 1,500 lbs./trip
SNE/MA Yellowtail flounder: 250 lbs./ DAS up to a maximum of 1,500 lbs./trip
SNE/MA Winter Flounder: Landing of this stock is prohibited in any fishery.
Windowpane Flounder: Landing of this species is prohibited in any fishery.
Ocean Pout: Landing of this species is prohibited in any fishery.
Atlantic halibut: One fish per trip
Atlantic wolffish: Landing of this species is prohibited in all fisheries (see section 4.3.5).
Restricted Gear Areas: Two restricted gear areas are established. Vessels fishing under a
groundfish DAS are required to comply with the gear requirements for these areas.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

134

Proposed Action
Measures to Meet Mortality Objectives

Administration: Vessel operators must comply with the following administrative
requirements to fish in these areas:
•

•
•
•
•

As specified by the Regional Administrator, vessel operators must either request
a Letter of Authorization (LOA) from NMFS or must make a specific VMS
declaration to fish in the areas. The minimum participation period if an LOA is
required is seven days.
A vessel can fish inside and outside the area on the same trip, but is subject to the
most restrictive measures (gear, trip limits, etc.) for the entire trip.
Existing gear performance standards apply to gear used in these areas. Gillnets
with large mesh that are allowed in the area are allowed to retain monkfish
subject to monkfish possession limits and not the gear performance standards.
Other gear is not allowed on board when operating in these areas.
Additional gear (such as the five-point trawl, raised footrope trawl, or tie-down
sink gillnets with mesh less than ten inches) may be considered for use in this
area if approved by the Regional Administrator consistent with the regulations
for approving additional gear in special management programs.

Areas: The areas are defined as:
Western GB Multispecies RGA:
42-00N 69-30W
42-00N 68-30W
41-00N 68-30W
41-00N 69-30W
Southern New England Multispecies RGA:
41-30N 70-30W
40-00N 70-30W
40-00N 71-30W
40-30N 71-30W
40-30N 72-00W
North to the Connecticut shoreline at 72-00W
East along the shoreline to 41-30N
Gear restrictions include:
Trawl Gear: Trawl vessels fishing under a groundfish DAS must use a haddock separator
trawl, eliminator trawl, or the rope trawl. The haddock separator trawl and Ruhle trawl
are described in existing regulations.
Rope trawl: The design includes a four-panel structure to increase headline
height and large mesh in the front part of the trawl. The separator panel is made
from a series of parallel ropes of different lengths. The panel is one-third from
the fishing line in the vertical plane. There is a large escape opening in the
bottom of the trawl. Additional details will be clarified by NMFS in the proposed
rule and final regulations.
Sink gillnets: No tiedown nets allowed using mesh less than ten inches. Stand-up gillnets
are allowed with legal size mesh.
Longline/tub trawls
Handgear
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

135

Proposed Action
Measures to Meet Mortality Objectives

Figure 4 – Option 3A, 24-hour clock, restricted gear areas

4.3.2.2

GOM Haddock Sink Gillnet Pilot Program

To facilitate the targeting of haddock in the GOM by sink gillnet vessels, a pilot program is
authorized with the following requirements and restrictions. This was Option 2 in the draft
amendment.
Location: Gulf of Maine regulated mesh area
Gear: Six inch gillnets. A day gillnet vessel participating in this program cannot fish with,
possess, haul, or deploy more than thirty nets. There are no limits on the number of nets
for trip gillnet vessels. All nets must be stand-up nets - tie-down nets cannot be used
during this period if a vessel has notified NMFS of its intent to participate.
Season: January 1 – April 30 (subject to any rolling or seasonal closures in effect).
Effort controls: All vessels notifying NMFS of their intent to participate must use
Category A DAS for any fishing trip during the period January 1 through April 30,
regardless of whether catch is landed or not.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

136

Proposed Action
Measures to Meet Mortality Objectives

Notification requirements:
(1) Participating vessels must annually notify the NMFS by October 1 of the
intent to participate in this program.
(2) Vessels notifying NMFS will receive a letter of authorization and must have
that letter on board during the period.
(3) Vessels advising NMFS of their intent to participate in the program must
notify the observer program at least 72 hours before any sink gillnet trip during the period
January 1 – April 30.
Duration: This program will be in place for FY 2010 through FY 2012. The Regional
Administrator can suspend participation in the program by individual vessels, or by all
vessels, if the program is determined to be inconsistent with the goals and objectives of
the management plan.
Rationale: Recent gillnet selectivity studies suggest that six and a half inch sink gillnets retain
few haddock. This program is a limited, strictly controlled program to determine if a smaller
minimum mesh size for sink gillnets will enable these vessels to target haddock, allowing them to
become more diverse in their catches while not having a negative impact on other stocks.
There have been suggestions that this program is analogous to a SAP and an experiment should
be conducted prior to its authorization. These arguments raise the concern that there isn’t
evidence that haddock can be selectively targeted and this program will increase catches of cod
and/or pollock. The arguments further suggest that the program should be supported by
appropriate research. First, the Council notes that vessels in this pilot program must use Category
A DAS; it is thus not akin to SAPs that result in an increase of effort because they authorize the
use of Category B DAS. In addition, vessels must use a smaller number of nets than are
authorized outside the program and are subject to the GOM cod trip limits, making it less likely
that the program will increase cod and pollock catches. Analyses in this document show that there
isn’t evidence that cod or pollock catch rates will increase significantly as a result of this
program. Second, there are no regulatory provisions that require the conduct of an experiment
prior to a management change implemented by the Council through a management action. In
addition, there are no Council policies that require research prior to the adoption of gear through a
management action. The Council does have a policy for approval of additional gear in the
Category B regular DAS program and SAPs through an administrative change, and does have a
policy for approval of cooperative research, but neither policy constrains the Council from
implementing management changes through a management action.

4.3.2.3

Haddock Minimum Size

The minimum size for haddock (both GOM and GB) is changed to 18 inches. This measure
applies to commercial groundfish vessels. This was Option 2 in the draft amendment.
Rationale: This measure is intended to reduce discards and increase landings of the rebuilt
haddock stocks. As proposed it does not apply to recreational vessels but this may change if
recreational vessels can increase their mortality on all haddock stocks.

4.3.3 Recreational Fishery Measures

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

137

Proposed Action
Measures to Meet Mortality Objectives

4.3.3.1

Provisions for Landing Fillets

Option 2 from the draft amendment is adopted as modified. Recreational (including
party/charter) fishermen will be allowed to land fillets. All landed species must have at least two
square inches of skin are on the fillet. The skin must be contiguous and must allow ready
identification of the fish species. Fillets must be from legal sized fish. For enforcing bag limit
restrictions, the number of fillets will be converted to whole fish at the place of landing by
dividing the fillet number by two. If fish are filleted into single (butterfly) fillets, each fillet is
deemed to be from one whole fish.
In the draft amendment, this requirement only applied to stocks with a recreational and
commercial allocation, and the fillets had to be of legal size. These elements were changed for
this action in response to comments.
Rationale: Many recreational fishermen prefer to land fish in fillets, particularly on party/charter
vessels where skinning of fish is provided as a service to the customer. The second option
addresses the concerns of enforcement agents that they will not be able to enforce size limits if
skin is removed because the species will not be identifiable.

4.3.3.2

Removal of the Limit on Hooks

Option 2 from the draft amendment is adopted. Recreational (including party/charter) fishermen
are not limited to two hooks per line. Fishermen continue to be limited to one line per angler.
Rationale: Amendment 7 restricted recreational groundfish fishermen to two hooks per line and
one line per angler as an effort reduction measure. This restriction does not exist in other
recreational fisheries. As cod rebuild, some of these fisheries are catching small amounts of cod
when using multiple hooks. These fish must either be discarded or retained illegally. This revision
recognizes the reality that these incidents are likely to increase as cod rebuild and it serves little
purpose to require discarding of cod.

4.3.3.3

Measures to Reduce Mortality

The primary groundfish species caught by recreational fishermen are winter flounder, cod,
haddock, and pollock. Most winter flounder is caught within state waters and the Council cannot
specify management measures for these catches as they are outside Council jurisdiction. The
stocks where recreational catches are a substantial part of the harvest are GOM cod and GOM
haddock. Whether a reduction in fishing mortality from recreational fishing is a function of two
factors: the overall fishing mortality (and if it needs to be reduced to achieve mortality targets)
and the division of the stocks into a commercial and recreational allocation.
If both the commercial and recreational components are catching their share of the allocation,
then each component of the fishery would have to contribute an equivalent mortality reduction if
one is required. If one component is exceeding its share it would need to contribute a larger
reduction.
For the allocation option selected by the Council in section 4.2.5 and the mortality changes
needed for GOM cod and GOM haddock, the necessary mortality reductions for the recreational
fishery are shown in Table 23. The numbers in this table differ from those in the draft amendment
because by adopting the revised ABC control rules (see section 4.1.2) the Council changed the
needed mortality reduction for GOM cod.
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

138

Proposed Action
Measures to Meet Mortality Objectives

Table 23 – Impacts of recreational/commercial allocation options on mortality reductions needed for
the recreational components of the groundfish fishery.

Stock

Overall
Needed

Allocation Years
2001-2006

Reduction
GOM cod
GOM haddock

Rec.

-40%

-25%

Increase

4.3.3.3.1 GOM Cod
Option 3: Landing of GOM cod is prohibited from November 1 through April 15. There is no
change to the minimum size or bag limit.
Rationale: This measure modifies the recreational measures to meet mortality objectives.

4.3.3.3.2 Haddock
The minimum size for both GOM and GB haddock is reduced to 18 inches.
Rationale: This measure modifies the minimum size for haddock so that it is consistent with the
change for the commercial fishery. It also provides increased recreational access to the rebuilt
haddock resource. In the draft amendment this measure was incorrectly proposed only for GOM
haddock, but the Council corrected this error when making its final decision.

4.3.4 Atlantic Halibut Minimum Size
The minimum size for Atlantic halibut is increased to 41 inches (104.1 cm.), total length. This
measure applies to all groundfish vessels (commercial, recreational (private, party, and charter).
This adopts Option 2 from the draft amendment.
Rationale: This increase in the minimum size matches the median length at maturity for female
halibut in the Gulf of Maine. This change should slightly increase opportunities for additional
halibut to spawn prior to capture.

4.3.5 Prohibition on Retention of Atlantic Wolffish
This action adopts Option 2 from the draft amendment. Atlantic wolffish cannot be retained,
landed, or sold by any vessel, including all commercial vessels and all recreational (private, party,
and charter) vessels. All Atlantic wolffish caught by any gear must be returned to the sea
unharmed as quickly as possible.
Rationale: Canadian studies suggest that Atlantic wolffish have relatively high survival rates if
returned to the sea after capture in trawl gear. This measure uses this fact to reduce fishing
mortality on this species.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

139

Proposed Action
Measures to Meet Mortality Objectives

4.3.6

Implementation of Additional Sectors/Modifications to Existing Sectors

The following list summarizes the new sector applications, and request for modifications to
existing sectors, that were received for inclusion in Amendment 16. The Council has determined
that if approved new sectors will begin operating in FY 2010. This is to allow more time for
sector organizers and NMFS to prepare for their implementation. Subsequently, the
implementation of each sector is analyzed in separate Environmental Assessments that tier from
this FEIS.
When submitted, most applications were based on the existing sector regulations that were
adopted by Amendment 13. Since several Council policies may revise those regulations, some of
the applications may be modified. This list does not include all exemptions requested by the
sectors, but just those that are not consistent with existing or proposed sector policies that await
approval by NMFS. As an example, some sectors have asked to be allowed to trade ACE. Since
this is being considered as a policy for all groundfish sectors, that request is not listed in this
section. Almost all sectors asked for allocations of specific groundfish stocks, but the revised
Council sector policy will require these sectors to receive an allocation of all stocks caught. Most
sectors submitted documents to the Council incorporating the proposed sector policies.
Should the Council not adopt the proposed policies (such as trading of ACE, universal
exemptions, etc.), the final amendment may need to be modified to reflect individual sector
requests. Presumably a sector could still request an exemption from NMFS without Council
action unless it is specifically prohibited.
Several sectors have asked for allocations of stocks not managed by this FMP. Since these
requests cannot be granted until other FMPs adopt sectors, they are not addressed here and are not
listed.
Several sectors asked that their sector names and description be modified from the draft
amendment text. These changes were approved by the Council and have been incorporated
below.

4.3.6.1

Modifications to the Georges Bank Cod Hook Sector

The existing sector is proposed to be modified as follows:
• The sector would receive an allocation of all regulated groundfish stocks that are
allocated to sectors (i.e. not just GB cod).
• Fishing would be allowed in all stock areas.
• Requested exemptions will be consistent with existing or proposed sector policies.

4.3.6.2

Modifications to the Fixed Gear Sector

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

140

Proposed Action
Measures to Meet Mortality Objectives

4.3.6.3

Sustainable Harvest Sector

This sector will be comprised of more than 70 permit holders that will fish in all three stock areas
Gulf of Maine, Georges Bank and Southern New England, using trawl, gillnet and longline
fishing gear.
Primary Hailing Ports: Cundy’s Harbor ME, Portland, ME, Portsmouth, NH, Boston, MA,
Gloucester, MA, New Bedford, MA, Newport, RI
Primary unloading ports: Cundy’s Harbor ME, Portland, ME, Portsmouth, NH, Boston, MA,
Gloucester, MA, New Bedford, MA, Newport, RI
(Other unloading ports may be named in the operations plan.)
Primary Gear: otter trawl, gillnets, longlines
Primary fishing areas: Gulf of Maine, Georges Bank, Southern New England
Estimated sector ACE share: may exceed 20% on several stocks depending on allocation
method chosen
Stocks: All allocated regulated groundfish stocks (except Atlantic halibut, ocean pout,
windowpane flounder, SNE/MA winter flounder, and Atlantic wolffish) as proposed by
Amendment 16

4.3.6.4

Port Clyde Community Groundfish Sector

The Port Clyde Draggermen’s Co-Op and the Midcoast Fishermen’s Association propose a
community-based sector, with membership of more than ten vessels expected. The sector initially
requested allocations for GOM stocks, suggesting that the intended operating area is statistical
areas 511, 512, 513, 514 and 515, but the sector may operate in any area. Members will primarily
use trawl gear but will be allowed to use other legal gear (gillnets and longlines). All exemptions
requested are consistent with existing or proposed sector policies.
Primary hailing ports anticipated: Port Clyde, ME, Cape Porpoise/Saco, ME, Cundy’s Harbor,
ME, Portland, ME, Monhegan, ME, Boothbay Harbor, ME, and Phippsburg, ME
Primary unloading ports anticipated: Port Clyde, ME, Cape Porpoise/Saco, ME, Cundy’s
Harbor, ME, Portland, ME, Monhegan, ME, Boothbay Harbor, ME, and Phippsburg, ME
(Other hailing or unloading ports may be specified in the operations plan.)
Primary gear: Any gear allowed by regulations
Potential secondary gear: Any gear allowed by regulations
Primary fishing areas: Gulf of Maine
Potential other fishing areas: Georges Bank, Southern New England
Estimated sector ACE share: 0-20% (but may exceed 20% subject to elimination of the 20%
cap)
Stocks: All allocated regulated groundfish stocks (except Atlantic halibut, ocean pout,
windowpane flounder, SNE/MA winter flounder, and Atlantic wolffish) as proposed by
Amendment 16

4.3.6.5

Northeast Fishery Sector I

141

Proposed Action
Measures to Meet Mortality Objectives

purpose of achieving economy of scale for management, monitoring, database, trading and other
services to improve compatibility between the individual sector operations.
Primary hailing ports anticipated: To be designated in the operations plan.
Primary unloading ports anticipated: To be designated in the operations plan.
Gear: Primary and secondary gear will be described in the operations plan.
Primary fishing areas: Intended fishing areas will be described in the operations plan.
Estimated sector ACE share: 0-20% (but may exceed 20% subject to elimination of the 20%
cap)
Stocks: All allocated regulated groundfish stocks (except Atlantic halibut, ocean pout,
windowpane flounder, SNE/MA winter flounder, and Atlantic wolffish) as proposed by
Amendment 16.

4.3.6.6

Northeast Fishery Sector II

Working with the Northeast Seafood Coalition, this sector will consist of multiple permits
qualified to enroll in a sector. There would be no limit to the number of permits that could be
enrolled in the sector (unless the Council implements a cap on ACE). There are no internal limits
on membership, but it is expected the sector will consist of 12 to 35 active vessels fishing on the
ACE in any given fishing year. The sector will list all permits and identify active vessels in the
annual operations plan. This sector will operate within a network of thirteen sectors for the
purpose of achieving economy of scale for management, monitoring, database, trading and other
services to improve compatibility between the individual sector operations.
Primary hailing ports anticipated: To be designated in the operations plan.
Primary unloading ports anticipated: To be designated in the operations plan.
Gear: Primary and secondary gear will be described in the operations plan.
Primary fishing areas: Intended fishing areas will be described in the operations plan.
Estimated sector ACE share: 0-20% (but may exceed 20% subject to elimination of the 20%
cap)
Stocks: All allocated regulated groundfish stocks (except Atlantic halibut, ocean pout,
windowpane flounder, SNE/MA winter flounder, and Atlantic wolffish) as proposed by
Amendment 16.

4.3.6.7

Northeast Fishery Sector III

Working with the Northeast Seafood Coalition, this sector will consist of multiple permits
qualified to enroll in a sector. There would be no limit to the number of permits that could be
enrolled in the sector (unless the Council implements a cap on ACE). There are no internal limits
on membership, but it is expected the sector will consist of 12 to 35 active vessels fishing on the
ACE in any given fishing year. The sector will list all permits and identify active vessels in the
annual operations plan. This sector will operate within a network of thirteen sectors for the
purpose of achieving economy of scale for management, monitoring, database, trading and other
services to improve compatibility between the individual sector operations.
Primary hailing ports anticipated: To be designated in the operations plan.
Primary unloading ports anticipated: To be designated in the operations plan.
Gear: Primary and secondary gear will be described in the operations plan.
Primary fishing areas: Intended fishing areas will be described in the operations plan.
Estimated sector ACE share: 0-20% (but may exceed 20% subject to elimination of the 20%
cap)
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

142

Proposed Action
Measures to Meet Mortality Objectives

Stocks: All allocated regulated groundfish stocks (except Atlantic halibut, ocean pout,
windowpane flounder, SNE/MA winter flounder, and Atlantic wolffish) as proposed by
Amendment 16.

4.3.6.8

Northeast Fishery Sector IV

4.3.6.9

Northeast Fishery Sector V

4.3.6.10 Northeast Fishery Sector VI
Working with the Northeast Seafood Coalition, this sector will consist of multiple permits
qualified to enroll in a sector. There would be no limit to the number of permits that could be
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

143

Proposed Action
Measures to Meet Mortality Objectives

enrolled in the sector (unless the Council implements a cap on ACE). There are no internal limits
on membership, but it is expected the sector will consist of 12 to 35 active vessels fishing on the
ACE in any given fishing year. The sector will list all permits and identify active vessels in the
annual operations plan. This sector will operate within a network of thirteen sectors for the
purpose of achieving economy of scale for management, monitoring, database, trading and other
services to improve compatibility between the individual sector operations.
Primary hailing ports anticipated: To be designated in the operations plan.
Primary unloading ports anticipated: To be designated in the operations plan.
Gear: Primary and secondary gear will be described in the operations plan.
Primary fishing areas: Intended fishing areas will be described in the operations plan.
Estimated sector ACE share: 0-20% (but may exceed 20% subject to elimination of the 20%
cap)
Stocks: All allocated regulated groundfish stocks (except Atlantic halibut, ocean pout,
windowpane flounder, SNE/MA winter flounder, and Atlantic wolffish) as proposed by
Amendment 16.

4.3.6.11 Northeast Fishery Sector VII
Working with the Northeast Seafood Coalition, this sector will consist of multiple permits
qualified to enroll in a sector. There would be no limit to the number of permits that could be
enrolled in the sector (unless the Council implements a cap on ACE). There are no internal limits
on membership, but it is expected the sector will consist of 12 to 35 active vessels fishing on the
ACE in any given fishing year. The sector will list all permits and identify active vessels in the
annual operations plan. This sector will operate within a network of thirteen sectors for the
purpose of achieving economy of scale for management, monitoring, database, trading and other
services to improve compatibility between the individual sector operations.
Primary hailing ports anticipated: To be designated in the operations plan.
Primary unloading ports anticipated: To be designated in the operations plan.
Gear: Primary and secondary gear will be described in the operations plan.
Primary fishing areas: Intended fishing areas will be described in the operations plan.
Estimated sector ACE share: 0-20% (but may exceed 20% subject to elimination of the 20%
cap)
Stocks: All allocated regulated groundfish stocks (except Atlantic halibut, ocean pout,
windowpane flounder, SNE/MA winter flounder, and Atlantic wolffish) as proposed by
Amendment 16.

4.3.6.12 Northeast Fishery Sector VIII
Working with the Northeast Seafood Coalition, this sector will consist of multiple permits
qualified to enroll in a sector. There would be no limit to the number of permits that could be
enrolled in the sector (unless the Council implements a cap on ACE). There are no internal limits
on membership, but it is expected the sector will consist of 12 to 35 active vessels fishing on the
ACE in any given fishing year. The sector will list all permits and identify active vessels in the
annual operations plan. This sector will operate within a network of thirteen sectors for the
purpose of achieving economy of scale for management, monitoring, database, trading and other
services to improve compatibility between the individual sector operations.
Primary hailing ports anticipated: To be designated in the operations plan.
Primary unloading ports anticipated: To be designated in the operations plan.
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

144

Proposed Action
Measures to Meet Mortality Objectives

Gear: Primary and secondary gear will be described in the operations plan.
Primary fishing areas: Intended fishing areas will be described in the operations plan.
Estimated sector ACE share: 0-20% (but may exceed 20% subject to elimination of the 20%
cap)
Stocks: All allocated regulated groundfish stocks (except Atlantic halibut, ocean pout,
windowpane flounder, SNE/MA winter flounder, and Atlantic wolffish) as proposed by
Amendment 16.

4.3.6.13 Northeast Fishery Sector IX
Working with the Northeast Seafood Coalition, this sector will consist of multiple permits
qualified to enroll in a sector. There would be no limit to the number of permits that could be
enrolled in the sector (unless the Council implements a cap on ACE). There are no internal limits
on membership, but it is expected the sector will consist of 12 to 35 active vessels fishing on the
ACE in any given fishing year. The sector will list all permits and identify active vessels in the
annual operations plan. This sector will operate within a network of thirteen sectors for the
purpose of achieving economy of scale for management, monitoring, database, trading and other
services to improve compatibility between the individual sector operations.
Primary hailing ports anticipated: To be designated in the operations plan.
Primary unloading ports anticipated: To be designated in the operations plan.
Gear: Primary and secondary gear will be described in the operations plan.
Primary fishing areas: Intended fishing areas will be described in the operations plan.
Estimated sector ACE share: 0-20% (but may exceed 20% subject to elimination of the 20%
cap)
Stocks: All allocated regulated groundfish stocks (except Atlantic halibut, ocean pout,
windowpane flounder, SNE/MA winter flounder, and Atlantic wolffish) as proposed by
Amendment 16.

4.3.6.14 Northeast Fishery Sector X
Working with the Northeast Seafood Coalition, this sector will consist of multiple permits
qualified to enroll in a sector. There would be no limit to the number of permits that could be
enrolled in the sector (unless the Council implements a cap on ACE). There are no internal limits
on membership, but it is expected the sector will consist of 12 to 35 active vessels fishing on the
ACE in any given fishing year. The sector will list all permits and identify active vessels in the
annual operations plan. This sector will operate within a network of thirteen sectors for the
purpose of achieving economy of scale for management, monitoring, database, trading and other
services to improve compatibility between the individual sector operations.
Primary hailing ports anticipated: To be designated in the operations plan.
Primary unloading ports anticipated: To be designated in the operations plan.
Gear: Primary and secondary gear will be described in the operations plan.
Primary fishing areas: Intended fishing areas will be described in the operations plan.
Estimated sector ACE share: 0-20% (but may exceed 20% subject to elimination of the 20%
cap)
Stocks: All allocated regulated groundfish stocks (except Atlantic halibut, ocean pout,
windowpane flounder, SNE/MA winter flounder, and Atlantic wolffish) as proposed by
Amendment 16.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

145

Proposed Action
Measures to Meet Mortality Objectives

4.3.6.15 Northeast Fishery Sector XI
Working with the Northeast Seafood Coalition, this sector will consist of multiple permits
qualified to enroll in a sector. There would be no limit to the number of permits that could be
enrolled in the sector (unless the Council implements a cap on ACE). There are no internal limits
on membership, but it is expected the sector will consist of 12 to 35 active vessels fishing on the
ACE in any given fishing year. The sector will list all permits and identify active vessels in the
annual operations plan. This sector will operate within a network of thirteen sectors for the
purpose of achieving economy of scale for management, monitoring, database, trading and other
services to improve compatibility between the individual sector operations.
Primary hailing ports anticipated: To be designated in the operations plan.
Primary unloading ports anticipated: To be designated in the operations plan.
Gear: Primary and secondary gear will be described in the operations plan.
Primary fishing areas: Intended fishing areas will be described in the operations plan.
Estimated sector ACE share: 0-20% (but may exceed 20% subject to elimination of the 20%
cap)
Stocks: All allocated regulated groundfish stocks (except Atlantic halibut, ocean pout,
windowpane flounder, SNE/MA winter flounder, and Atlantic wolffish) as proposed by
Amendment 16.

4.3.6.16 Northeast Fishery Sector XII
Working with the Northeast Seafood Coalition, this sector will consist of multiple permits
qualified to enroll in a sector. There would be no limit to the number of permits that could be
enrolled in the sector (unless the Council implements a cap on ACE). There are no internal limits
on membership, but it is expected the sector will consist of 12 to 35 active vessels fishing on the
ACE in any given fishing year. The sector will list all permits and identify active vessels in the
annual operations plan. This sector will operate within a network of thirteen sectors for the
purpose of achieving economy of scale for management, monitoring, database, trading and other
services to improve compatibility between the individual sector operations.
Primary hailing ports anticipated: To be designated in the operations plan.
Primary unloading ports anticipated: To be designated in the operations plan.
Gear: Primary and secondary gear will be described in the operations plan.
Primary fishing areas: Intended fishing areas will be described in the operations plan.
Estimated sector ACE share: 0-20% (but may exceed 20% subject to elimination of the 20%
cap)
Stocks: All allocated regulated groundfish stocks (except Atlantic halibut, ocean pout,
windowpane flounder, SNE/MA winter flounder, and Atlantic wolffish) as proposed by
Amendment 16.

4.3.6.17 Tri-State Sector
Working with the Cape Cod Commercial Hook Sector, this sector will be formed to operate in all
management areas using all legal gear (trawl, gillnet, hook). In addition to exemptions that are
consistent with current or proposed policies, the sector asks for exemptions from the following
regulations.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

146

Proposed Action
Measures to Meet Mortality Objectives

4.3.6.18 Northeast Fishery Sector XIII
Working with the Northeast Seafood Coalition, this sector will consist of multiple permits
qualified to enroll in a sector. There would be no limit to the number of permits that could be
enrolled in the sector (unless the Council implements a cap on ACE). There are no internal limits
on membership, but it is expected the sector will consist of 12 to 35 active vessels fishing on the
ACE in any given fishing year. The sector will list all permits and identify active vessels in the
annual operations plan. This sector will operate within a network of thirteen sectors for the
purpose of achieving economy of scale for management, monitoring, database, trading and other
services to improve compatibility between the individual sector operations.
Primary hailing ports anticipated: To be designated in the operations plan.
Primary unloading ports anticipated: To be designated in the operations plan.
Gear: Primary and secondary gear will be described in the operations plan.
Primary fishing areas: Intended fishing areas will be described in the operations plan.
Estimated sector ACE share: 0-20% (but may exceed 20% subject to elimination of the 20%
cap)
Stocks: All allocated regulated groundfish stocks (except Atlantic halibut, ocean pout,
windowpane flounder, SNE/MA winter flounder, and Atlantic wolffish) as proposed by
Amendment 16.

4.3.6.19 Northeast Coastal Communities Sector
A sector is proposed based in Martha’s Vineyard and other coastal communities. This sector will
take into account the unique situation of the Vineyard and smaller coastal communities
geographically and philosophically. This sector hopes to cooperate with other sectors, and the
NEFMC and NMFS, to maintain a fishery on Martha’s Vineyard and other communities.
Primary hailing ports anticipated: Menemsha, MA, Vineyard Haven, MA, Edgartown, MA,
and Oak Bluffs, MA.
Primary unloading ports anticipated: Menemsha, MA, Vineyard Haven, MA, Edgartown, MA,
and Oak Bluffs, MA.
(Other hailing or unloading ports may be specified in the operations plan.)
Primary gear: hand gear otter trawl
Potential secondary gear as needed based on future management changes and SAPS, and
final sector roster: otter trawl, and any other gear allowed by regulations
Primary fishing areas: Georges Bank, Southern New England
Potential other fishing areas: Gulf of Maine
Estimated sector ACE share: 0-20% (but may exceed 20% subject to elimination of the 20%
cap)
Stocks: All regulated groundfish stocks (except Atlantic halibut, ocean pout, windowpane
flounder, SNE/MA winter flounder, and Atlantic wolffish) as proposed by Amendment 16.
Development quota depending on allocation chosen by the NEFMC (no such scheme is included
in this action and adoption will take a future action). Martha’s Vineyard reserves the right to
apply for a Community Development Quota. Aquinnah/Wampanoag Tribe issues to be resolved
later.
Requested exemptions are consistent with existing or proposed sector policies. ACE trading
between sectors will be as set forth in A16.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

147

Proposed Action
Measures to Meet Mortality Objectives

4.3.7 Accountability Measures
The SFA revisions to the Magnuson-Steven Act imposed the following required element for
FMPs:
[FMPs must] “establish a mechanism for specifying annual catch limits in the
plan (including a multi-year plan), implementing regulations, or annual
specifications, at a level such that overfishing does not occur in the fishery,
including measures to ensure accountability.” (16 USC 1853(a)(15))
Provisions for implementing annual catch limits (ACLs) are proposed in section 4.2.1. This
section implements accountability measures (AMs).
The National Standard Guidelines were revised to provide advisory guidance (that does not have
the effect or force of law) for the implementation of these requirements (50CFR 600.310(g)).
Some of the provisions of this guidance include:
•
•
•

AMs are management controls to prevent ACLs from being exceeded and to correct
or mitigate overages of the ACL if they occur.
AMs should address and minimize both the frequency and magnitude of overages
and correct the problems that caused the overages in as short a time as possible.
AMs can be either in season AMs or AMs for when the ACL is exceeded.

NMFS acknowledged in the publication of the guidelines that there is no requirement that AMs
and ACLs be implemented as hard TACs or quotas, but conservation and management measures
must be implemented so that the ACL is not exceeded and AMs must apply if the ACL is
exceeded (74 FR 3184). While many measures in the management program are intended to
control fishing mortality and might be interpreted to be AMs since they are “management
controls to prevent the ACL from being exceeded,” the term AM is usually applied to specific,
automatic measures that are implemented either as an ACL is approached or after an ACL is
exceeded.
With respect to in-season AMs, the guidelines suggest that whenever possible these should be
included in FMPs. This action adopts several types of in-season AMs. Beginning in FY 2012,
common pool vessels will be subject to a hard TAC AM. This measure (section 4.3.7.1.2) for
common pool commercial vessels overlays a hard TAC system that includes closures of areas as
in-season TACs are approached and deductions of overages from the following period. The sector
program includes in-season AMs in that sectors must stop fishing in a stock area if they have
harvested the entire ACE for that stock (section 4.2.3.4). Sector provisions also include an
overage deduction in the following fishing year. While not identified in this section, existing
provisions implementing the U.S./Canada Resource Sharing Understanding could be considered
in-season AMs for GB yellowtail flounder and portions of GB cod and haddock: adjustments are
made to management measures (such as trip limits or gear requirements) as the TAC is
approached, areas are closed when a TAC is caught, and any overages are deducted from the
TAC in the subsequent fishing year.
The AM proposed for common-pool vessels in FY 2010 and FY 2011 is an AM for when the
ACL is exceeded (4.3.7.1.1). This alternative is designed to estimate the catch before the end of
the fishing year so that adjustments can be made at the start of the subsequent fishing year. The
goal of these adjustments is to end overfishing, as required by the M-S Act. Similarly, the AM

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

148

Proposed Action
Measures to Meet Mortality Objectives

options being considered for recreational vessels are implemented after an ACL is exceeded
(4.3.7.2).
When AMs are established for other fisheries (e.g. the scallop fishery) in order to end overfishing
on a groundfish ACL, the AMs may be adopted or revised in either a groundfish management
action or a management action for that fishery. While this action will specify the process for
accountability measures, they will be implemented as required by the M-S Act: that is, FY 2010
for fisheries determined to be subject to overfishing and FY 2011 for all other fisheries.

4.3.7.1

Commercial Groundfish Fishing Vessel Accountability Measures

4.3.7.1.1 Common Pool Vessels Accountability Measure – Differential
DAS/DAS Adjustment
This accountability measure will apply to commercial groundfish vessels that do not fish in
sectors in FY 2010 and FY 2011. Since the proposed AM modifies DAS in the year following a
given fishing year, if ACLs are projected to be exceeded in FY 2010 or FY 2011 then DAS will
be adjusted at the beginning of FY 2011 and FY 2012. No further DAS adjustments as a result of
this AM are expected after FY 2012, since the hard TAC AM (see section 4.3.7.1.2) takes effect
in that year.
In February, with available catch data, NMFS will estimate whether the ACLs will be exceeded
for the year. If so, NMFS will adjust DAS counting for the following fishing year based on
whether the ACLs will be exceeded or not. If an ACL for any stock is exceeded, NMFS will
calculate the differential DAS rate change needed to prevent the ACL for that stock from being
exceeded the following year. Since every ACL is evaluated, unless the mixed-stock exception is
invoked as discussed below, this approach means that in a given area the differential DAS rate
applied will be the most onerous rate determined. If this calculation results in similar changes
needed in all areas, NMFS will revise the Category A/Category B DAS split to account for the
change.
If in a given area catches of all stocks are at least ten percent less than the groundfish ACL,
NMFS will apply differential DAS to reduce the rate DAS are counted in order to allow harvests
in a subsequent year to attain the ACL. If similar changes are needed in all areas, NMFS will
revise the Category A/Category B DAS split rather than apply area specific differential DAS
changes. The first such change will be effective in FY 2011, based on the implementation of
ACLs in FY 2010.
Differential DAS changes will apply to the areas where specific stocks are caught. In the draft
amendment document, the areas were based on 30-minute squares as shown in Table 24. The
draft amendment noted that the differential DAS areas could be modified in order to avoid a
patchwork of DAS counting areas. Subsequent to the selection of final management measures, it
became clear that the differential DAS AM regulations could be simplified and effectiveness of
the AM could be improved by using areas similar to the broad reporting areas adopted in section
4.2.4.1. Since NMFS could make this change under the authority granted by the amendment, the
revised differential DAS areas are included here. Figure 5 illustrates the revised areas and

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

149

Proposed Action
Measures to Meet Mortality Objectives

Table 25 describes how differential rates for a specific stock will be applied to an area. The
coordinates for the GOM areas (inshore and offshore combined), offshore GOM area, and inshore
GB area are the same as for the reporting areas in section 4.2.4.1. The coordinates for the
differential DAS areas are listed below Figure 5. The two GOM areas differ from the single GOM
reporting area, but were adopted to more effectively implement this AM.
The adjustments to DAS counting will be based on Table 26. This table shows the differential
DAS adjustment necessary for different levels of catch in order to prevent overfishing. Once
NMFS evaluates the catch for every stock, the DAS adjustment required will be based on these
tables. Because the adjustment is formulaic, it will be implemented as a final rule. The necessary
adjustments will be based on the proportion of ACL caught rounded up to the nearest even tenth:
for example, if catch is 1.55 times the ACL, then the differential DAS adjustment is 1.6. When
determining any change in differential DAS counting, an analysis will be done to determine if the
mixed stock exception is applicable and if so the mixed stock exception will be applied.
Table 24 – Draft amendment document stocks and areas for differential DAS AM adjustment
Area
Stocks
Areas Included (depends on final measures)
Inshore GOM

Offshore
GOM

Offshore GB

SNE/MA

GOM Cod
GOM Haddock
CC/GOM yellowtail
GOM winter flounder
GOM/GB windowpane flounder
White Hake
Pollock
Redfish
Witch
Plaice
Halibut
GB cod
GB haddock
GB yellowtail (see note)
GB winter flounder

114-116,123-125,132,133,138-140

SNE/MA winter flounder
SNE/MA yellowtail flounder
SNE/MAB windowpane flounder

64-73, 80-90,100-106

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

98,99,112,113,118-122, 126-131,134-137,141143,148-150,154,155

75-79, 92-97,108-111

150

Proposed Action
Measures to Meet Mortality Objectives
Figure 5 – Proposed areas for differential DAS AM

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

151

Proposed Action
Measures to Meet Mortality Objectives

Inshore GOM Differential DAS Area
Point
INGOM1
INGOM2
INGOM3
INGOM4

N. Latitude

W. Longitude

()
43° 00’
43° 00’
(2)

69° 30’
69° 30’
70° 00’
70° 00’

(1) Intersection with ME shoreline
(2) North-facing shoreline of Cape Cod, MA
Offshore GOM Differential DAS Area
Point

N. Latitude

CII3
OFFGOM1
OFFGOM2
OFFGOM5
INGOM2
INGOM1

W. Longitude

42° 22’
42° 20’
42° 20’
43° 00’
43° 00’
(1)

67° 20’
67° 20’
70° 00’
70° 00’
69° 30’
69° 30’

(1) Intersection with ME shoreline

Inshore GB Differential DAS Area
Point

Latitude

Longitude

42° 00’ N.

(1)

G10

42° 20’ N.

70° 00’ W.

IGB1

42° 20’ N.

68° 50’ W.

IGB2

41° 00’ N.

68° 50’ W.

IGB3

41° 00’ N.

69° 30’ W.

IGB4

41° 10’ N.

69° 30’ W.

IGB5

41° 10’ N.

69° 50’ W.

IGB6

41° 20’ N.

69° 50’ W.

IGB7

41° 20’ N.

70° 00’ W.

G12

()

70° 00’ W.

The intersection of the Cape Cod, MA, coastline and 70° 00’ W. longitude.

South-facing shoreline of Cape Cod, MA.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

152

Proposed Action
Measures to Meet Mortality Objectives

Offshore GB Differential DAS Area
Point

N. Latitude

W. Longitude

IGB1

42° 20’

68° 50’

OGB1

42° 20’

67° 20’

CII3

42° 22’

67° 20’

SNE1

40° 27’

65° 43’

OGB2

40° 10’

(1)

OGB3

40° 10’

68° 50’

IGB1

42° 20’

68° 50’

The U.S./Canada Maritime Boundary as it intersects with the EEZ.

SNE/MA Differential DAS Area
Point

N. Latitude

W. Longitude

G12

()

70° 00’

IGB7

41° 20’

70° 00’

IGB6

41° 20’

69° 50’

IGB5

41° 10’

69° 50’

IGB4

41° 10’

69° 30’

IGB3

41° 00’

69° 30’

IGB2

41° 00’

68° 50’

SNEDA1

40° 10’

68° 50’

SNEDA2

40° 10’

73° 10’

SNEDA3

39° 50’

73° 10’

SNEDA4

39° 50’

(2)

South-facing shoreline of Cape Cod, MA.

East-facing shoreline of New Jersey.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

153

Proposed Action
Measures to Meet Mortality Objectives
Table 25 – Proposed stock/area combinations for application of differential DAS AM
Stock
Areas
Witch Flounder
OFFGOM, INGB, OFFGB
Plaice
OFFGOM. INGB, OFFGB
White Hake
INGOM, INGB, OFFGOM
Halibut
INGB, OFFGB, OFFGOM
Redfish
INGB, OFFGOM
Pout
SNE
Pollock
INGOM, INGB, OFFGOM
Atlantic wolffish
INGOM, INGB
GOM Cod
GOM Haddock
GOM WFL
CC/GOM Yellowtail Flounder
GOM/GB Windowpane

INGOM
INGOM, OFFGOM
INGOM
INGOM, INGB
OFFGB

GB Cod
GB Haddock
GB Yellowtail Flounder
GB Winter Flounder

INGB, OFFGB
INGB, OFFGB
OFFGB
OFGGB

SNE/MA Winter Flounder
SNE/MA Yellowtail Flounder
SNE Windowpane

INGB, SNE
SNE
SNE

Table 26 – Differential DAS AM factor
Proportion of ACL Caught
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
2.0

Differential DAS Factor
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
No Change
No Change
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
2.0

Rationale: The use of a differential DAS adjustment as an AM shown is based on the concept that
if stock size is known a change in catch results in a proportional change in exploitation. For the
strengths and weaknesses of this assumption, see the analysis of the impacts of this measure
(section 7.2.1.3.6). The areas proposed are the same as the areas for the broad reporting areas,
simplifying administration and matching the differential DAS areas with stock boundaries. The
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

154

Proposed Action
Measures to Meet Mortality Objectives

stock/area combinations are designed to apply the AM (if needed) to the area where most of a
stock’s catch is harvested.

4.3.7.1.2 Common Pool Vessels Accountability Measures – "Hard" Total
Allowable Catch (TAC)
This accountability measure will apply to commercial groundfish vessels that do not fish in
sectors in FY 2012 and beyond.
This action adopts a “hard” TAC backstop for common pool vessels in the commercial
groundfish fishery as the AM to ensure that overfishing does not occur. AMs are typically
thought of as a specific measure that controls fishing effort or catches as a result of exceeding, or
to prevent exceeding, an ACL. For example, one AM could be closing the fishery if catches reach
a certain level. In this case most consider the closure the AM and the specification of the ACL
and other measures used to control catches before the ACL is reached as separate measures. As
described in this action, the overlay of a hard TAC backstop is an AM system rather than one
specific measure. While this same approach could be used as a stand-alone management
alternative, it is proposed here as an overlay to the effort control measures described in section
4.3.2.1. Under this measure, most commercial groundfish fishing by common pool vessels ceases
in a stock area when it is projected that the TAC of a stock will be caught. This accountability
measure does not apply to recreational groundfish fishing, commercial groundfish fishing within
sectors, or incidental catches of groundfish in other fisheries (e.g. yellowtail flounder in the
scallop dredge fishery).
Affected Stocks
TACs/ACLs will be determined for all stocks in the multispecies FMP. TACs/ACLs will be
specified and monitored for the commercial fishery. If enough information is available,
TACs/ACLS for a species will be based on total commercial removals: commercial landings and
discards. This requires sufficient information to adequately estimate and monitor discards. While
for some stocks such information is already available and is included in stock assessments, for
other stocks it is not. When discards cannot be accurately estimated, then the TAC/ACL is
specified for and based on landings. Some measures (see sections 4.3.2.1 and 4.3.5) in this action
identify stocks that cannot be landed. If possession of a species or stock is prohibited then the
TAC/ACL for that stock or species will not be monitored on a real-time basis for the purposes of
closing the fishery. The following discussion however includes information on all species and
stocks since future management actions may allow landing these species.
There will be a separate TAC/ACL for each of the stocks managed under the multispecies plan.
Each TAC/ACL will be determined based on stock status and will be calculated according to the
periodic adjustment schedule adopted in Amendment 13 (i.e. every two years).
Target (Trimester) TACs
For each stock, the total annual TAC will be apportioned to trimesters. Each trimester will be
four months in duration. The trimesters will be divided as follows:
1st trimester: May 1-August 31
2nd trimester: September 1-December 31
3rd trimester: January 1-April 30

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

155

Proposed Action
Measures to Meet Mortality Objectives

The target TACs, or percentages of total TAC allocated to each trimester, are shown in Table 27.
The initial distribution was developed by the Council after taking into account the influence of
regulatory changes on recent landings patterns. Subsequent calculations will use the most recent
five year periods available when the calculations are performed. For other stocks, the distribution
of landings has been heavily influenced by management measures and the distribution shown in
the table represents a preferred distribution of landings.
The trimester TAC distribution for Atlantic wolffish was not included in the draft amendment and
is added here since this stock was added to the management unit.
Table 27 – Initial apportionment of common pool TAC to trimesters
Stock
Trimester 1
Trimester 2
Trimester3
GOM Cod
27%
36%
37%
GB Cod
25%
37%
38%
GOM Haddock
27%
26%
47%
GB Haddock
27%
33%
40%
CC/GOM
35%
35%
30%
Yellowtail
GB Yellowtail
19%
30%
52%
SNE/MA
21%
37%
42%
Yellowtail
GOM Winter
37%
38%
25%
GB Winter
8%
24%
69%
SNE/MA Winter
36%
50%
14%
Witch Flounder
27%
31%
42%
Plaice
24%
36%
40%
Pollock
28%
35%
37%
Redfish
25%
31%
44%
White Hake
38%
31%
31%
N. Windowpane
S. Windowpane
Ocean Pout
Halibut
Atlantic wolffish
75%
13%
12%

Setting the TAC/ACL and TAC/ACL Adjustment
The TACs/ACLs will be reviewed on a biennial basis as part of the periodic adjustment process
adopted by Amendment 13. TACs will be determined and set for each of the next two years. The
TAC/ACL set each year will either be altered from the previous year’s TAC/ACL based on a
review process or renewed unchanged. If the Council does not recommend a change to a
TAC/ACL, there is no requirement for submission of a Council document or a new NEPA
document.
For the purposes of determining this TAC/ACL, the basic process is outlined as:
•

The Annual Catch Limit (ACL) for the stock is determined.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

156

Proposed Action
Measures to Meet Mortality Objectives

• The catch available to the groundfish fishery is determined by subtracting the catch for
other fisheries from the ACL and the amount reserved for a research set-aside (should one be
adopted in a future action).
• The catch available to the commercial and recreational groundfish fishery is determined
based on the percentage of each stock allocated to each.
• The catch available to common pool vessels is determined by subtracting the catch
available to the commercial groundfish sectors.
Measures to ensure the TACs/ACLs are not exceeded
Stock Area Closures
In any trimester, when it is projected that ninety percent of the TAC/ACL for a stock will be
caught, NMFS will close the area where the stock is caught to all groundfish fishing using gear
capable of catching that species (see below for an exception to this requirement). Gear used to
catch other species will still be allowed to fish in the area. As an example, if an area is closed to
stop the catch of yellowtail flounder, groundfish fishing by common pool vessels using hook gear
may still be allowed in the area since they catch little yellowtail flounder. The area closed will be
based on the area that accounted for ninety percent of the reported (VTR) landings in prior years.
Areas that will be closed for each stock are shown in Table 29. These areas are based on
statistical areas where ninety percent of the catch was taken in recent years. The Regional
Administrator is authorized to expand or narrow the areas closed based on additional information.
For example, some stocks are found in a narrow depth range and it may be possible to use this
information to limit the area that must be closed. Other stocks may expand their range as they
rebuild, and larger areas may be needed to prevent exceeding the TAC. Because this action
incorporates Atlantic wolffish into the management unit, Table 29 has been modified from the
table shown in the draft amendment to include the statistical areas that contribute 90 percent of
the Atlantic wolffish landings.
Table 28 was originally developed for Amendment 13. The distribution of catches can change
over time, which is why this amendment authorizes the Regional Administrator to modify the
areas that close when 90 percent of a TAC/ACL is caught. As an example of the differences that
can develop over time, Table 29 summarizes the areas that contributed 90 percent of landings for
calendar years 2006-2008 and compares those areas to the ones shown in Table 28.
If a trimester TAC/ACL is not caught in the first or second trimester, the uncaught portion will be
carried forward into the next trimester. Uncaught portions in the third trimester will not be carried
over into the following fishing year.
If the TAC for the first two trimesters is exceeded, the overage will be deducted from the
TAC/ACL for the third trimester. If the TAC/ACL for the year is exceeded, an amount equal to
the overage will be deducted from the TAC/ACL for common pool vessels in the following year.
Rationale: Most regulated groundfish are caught by commercial vessels targeting groundfish.
This measure is designed to ensure that TACs/ACLs are not exceeded. By closing stock areas to
groundfish fishing before the groundfish TA/ACL is achieved, it reduces the likelihood the
groundfish TAC will be exceeded. Note that an adjustment is made when setting the TAC/ACL to
account for catches in other fisheries.
Some stock areas cover broad areas, even though the species may not be caught throughout the
area. By limiting closures to areas where most of the stock is caught, the stock is protected while
allowing opportunities to fish for other stocks. For example, the GB cod stock area stretches from
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

157

Proposed Action
Measures to Meet Mortality Objectives

Georges Bank to New Jersey, but very little cod is caught west of 70W. Other species are caught
in narrow depth bands within a stock area. Similarly, there is no reason to restrict gear that does
not catch a particular species from an area when the TAC/ACL is caught. This may also
encourage development of more selective fishing techniques so that fishing can continue when
the TAC/ACL for one species is caught. The draft amendment listed SA 521 as an area that will
be closed for GB winter flounder. This statistical area is not part of the stock area and so it has
been removed from the above table.

Table 28 – Gears prohibited in specific areas when a TAC/ACL is caught.
Area/Gear Prohibited When TAC/ACL is Caught
SPECIES
STOCK
Statistical Areas
Gear
GB

521,522,525,526,561

Trawl, gillnet, longline/hook

GOM

513,514,515

Trawl, gillnet, longline/hook

521,522,561

Trawl, gillnet, longline/hook

GOM

512,513,514,515

Trawl, gillnet, longline/hook

522,525,561,562

Trawl, gillnet

SNE/MA

537,539,612,613

Trawl, gillnet

CC/GOM

514,521

Trawl, gillnet

512,513,514,515,521,522

Trawl

512,513,514,515,521,522

Trawl

522,562

Trawl

GOM

514

Trawl, gillnet

SNE/MA

521,526,537,539,612,613

Trawl

513,514,515,521,522,561

Trawl

511,512,513,514,515,521,522,
525,561,613,616

Trawl, gillnet, longline/hook

Pollock

513,514,515,521,522,561

Gillnet, trawl, longline/hook

Atlantic
Wolffish

513,514,521,522

Gillnet, trawl, longline

Cod

Haddock

Yellowtail
Flounder
American
Plaice
Witch
Flounder
Winter
Flounder
Redfish
White Hake

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

158

Proposed Action
Measures to Meet Mortality Objectives
Table 29 – Comparison of statistical areas contributing 90 percent of landings using data from draft
Amendment 16 and CY 2006-2008 landings. Differences are underlined.
Statistical Areas Contributing 90 percent of Landings
SPECIES
STOCK
Draft A16 Statistical Areas
CY 2006-2008
GB

521,522,525,526,561

521,522,525,561

GOM

513,514,515

513,514

521,522,561

521,522,525,561,562

GOM

512,513,514,515

513,514,515

522,525,561,562

SNE/MA

537,539,612,613

537,539,538,613

CC/GOM

514,521

Cod

Haddock

Yellowtail
Flounder
American
Plaice
Witch
Flounder
Winter
Flounder

512,513,514,515,521,522
512,513,514,515,521,522

512,513,514,515,521,522,
525
512,513,514,515,521,522,
525

521,522,562

522,525,561,562

GOM

514

SNE/MA

521,526,537,539,612,613

512,537,539,611,612,613

513,514,515,521,522,561

513,514,515,521,522

511,512,513,514,515,521,522,
525,561,613,616

513,514,515,521,522

513,514,515,521,522,561

513,514,515,521,522

Redfish
White Hake
Pollock

GB Cod Trimester TAC Area
Point
GB1
GB2
GB3
GB4
GB5
GB6
GB7
GB8
GB9
GB10
GB11
GB12
GB13
GB14
GB15
GB1

N. Latitude

W. Longitude

42° 20’
42° 20’
40° 30’
40° 30’
39° 50’
39° 50’
41° 00’
41° 00’
41° 10’
41° 10’
41° 20’
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
42° 20’

70° 00’
(1)
65° 40’
66° 40’
66° 40’
66° 40’
68° 50’
69° 30’
69° 30’
69° 50’
69° 50’
70° 00’
70° 00’
70° 00’
70° 00’
70° 00’

(1) U.S. Canada maritime boundary

(2) East-facing shoreline of Nantucket
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

159

Proposed Action
Measures to Meet Mortality Objectives

(3) North-facing shoreline of Nantucket
(4) South-facing shoreline of Cape Cod
(5) North-facing shoreline of Cape Cod, MA
GOM Cod Trimester TAC Area
Point
GOM1
GOM2
GOM3
GOM4
GOM5
GOM6
GOM7
GOM8
GOM9
GOM10
GOM11
GOM12

N. Latitude

W. Longitude

(1)
43° 40’
43° 40’
43° 20’
43° 20’
43° 00’
43° 00’
42° 50’
42° 50’
42° 20’
42° 20’
(3)

69° 20’
69° 20’
69° 00’
69° 00’
69° 10’
69° 10’
69° 20’
69° 20’
69° 40’
69° 40’
70° 00’
70° 00’

(1) Intersection with ME shoreline
(2) North-facing shoreline of Cape Cod, MA
GB Haddock Trimester TAC Area
Point

N. Latitude

W. Longitude

GB1
GB2
GB3
GB4
GB5
GB6
GB7
GB8
GB9
GB10
GB11
GB12
GB13
GB14
GB15

42° 20’
42° 20’
40° 30’
40° 30’
39° 50’
39° 50’
41° 00’
41° 00’
41° 10’
41° 10’
41° 20’
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)

70° 00’
(1)
65° 40’
66° 40’
66° 40’
66° 40’
68° 50’
69° 30’
69° 30’
69° 50’
69° 50’
70° 00’
70° 00’
70° 00’
70° 00’

GB1

42° 20’

70° 00’

(1) U.S. Canada maritime boundary

(2) East-facing shoreline of Nantucket
(3) North-facing shoreline of Nantucket
(4) South-facing shoreline of Cape Cod
(5) North-facing shoreline of Cape Cod, MA

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

160

Proposed Action
Measures to Meet Mortality Objectives

GOM Haddock Trimester TAC Area
Point
GOM1
GOM2
GOM3
GOM4
GOM5
GOM6
GOM7
GOM8
GOM9
GOM10
GOM10

N. Latitude

W. Longitude

(1)
43° 40’
43° 40’
43° 20’
43° 20’
(2)
42° 53.1’
(2)
42° 20’
42° 20’
(3)

69° 20’
69° 20’
69° 00’
69° 00’
67° 40’
67° 40’
67° 44.4’
67° 40’
67° 40’
70° 00’
70° 00’

(1) Intersection with ME shoreline
(2) U.S. Canada maritime boundary
(3) North-facing shoreline of Cape Cod, MA
GB Yellowtail Flounder Trimester TAC Area
Point
GB1
GB2
GB3
GB4
GB5
GB6
GB1

N. Latitude

W. Longitude

42° 20’
42° 20’
40° 30’
40° 30’
39° 50’
39° 50’
42° 20’

68° 50’
(1)
65° 40’
66° 40’
66° 40’
68° 50’
68° 50’

(1) U.S. Canada maritime boundary
SNE/MA Yellowtail Flounder Trimester TAC Area
Point
SNEMA1
SNEMA2
SNEMA3
SNEMA4
SNEMA5
SNEMA6
SNEMA7
SNEMA8
SNEMA9
SNEMA10
SNEMA11

N. Latitude

W. Longitude

(1)
(2)
(3)
39° 50’
39° 50’
40° 00’
40° 00’
(4)
41° 00’
41° 00’
(6)

70° 00’
70° 00’
70° 00’
70° 00’
71° 40’
71° 40’
73° 00’
73° 00’
(5)
71° 40’
71° 40’

(1) South-facing shoreline of Cape Cod, MA
(2) North-facing shoreline of Nantucket, MA
(3) South-facing shoreline of Nantucket, MA
(4) South-facing shoreline of Long Island, NY
(5) East-facing shoreline of Long Island, NY
(6) Intersection with Rhode Island shoreline

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

161

Proposed Action
Measures to Meet Mortality Objectives

CC/GOM Yellowtail Flounder Trimester TAC Area
Point
CCGOM1
CCGOM2
CCGOM3
CCGOM4
CCGOM5
CCGOM6
CCGOM7
CCGOM8
CCGOM9
CCGOM10
CCGOM11
CCGOM12

N. Latitude

W. Longitude

42° 50’
42° 50’
42° 20’
42° 20’
41° 00’
41° 00’
41° 10’
41° 10’
41° 20’
41° 20’
(3)
(4)

(1)
69° 40’
69° 40’
68° 50’
68° 50’
69° 30’
69° 30’
69° 50’
69° 50’
(2)
70° 00’
70° 00’

(1) Intersection with MA shoreline
(2) East-facing shoreline of Nantucket, MA
(4) North-facing shoreline of Nantucket, MA
(3) South-facing shoreline of MA
American Plaice Trimester TAC Area
Point
AP1
AP2
AP3
AP4
AP5
AP6
AP7
AP8
AP9
AP10
AP11
AP12
AP13
AP14
AP15
AP16
AP17
AP18
AP19
AP20
AP21
AP22
AP23
AP24
AP25
AP26

N. Latitude

W. Longitude

(1)
44° 10’
44° 00’
44° 00’
(2)
42° 53.1'
(2)
41° 20’
41° 10’
41° 10’
41° 00’
41° 00’
40° 50’
40° 50’
40° 40’
40° 40’
39° 50’
39° 50’
41° 00’
41° 00’
41° 10’
41° 10’
41° 20’
41° 20’
(4)
(5)

68° 00’
67° 50’
67° 50’
67° 40’
67° 40’
67° 44.4'
67° 40’
67° 40’
67° 40’
67° 10’
67° 10’
67° 00’
67° 00’
66° 50’
66° 50’
66° 40’
66° 40’
68° 50’
68° 50’
69° 30’
69° 30’
69° 50’
69° 50’
(3)
70° 00’
70° 00’

(1) Intersection with ME shoreline
(2) U.S. Canada maritime boundary
(3) East-facing shoreline of Nantucket, MA
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

162

Proposed Action
Measures to Meet Mortality Objectives

(4) North-facing shoreline of Nantucket, MA
(5) South-facing shoreline of Cape Cod, MA
Witch Flounder Trimester TAC Area
Point
AP1
AP2
AP3
AP4
AP5
AP6
AP7
AP8
AP9
AP10
AP11
AP12
AP13
AP14
AP15
AP16
AP17
AP18
AP19
AP20
AP21
AP22
AP23
AP24
AP25
AP26

N. Latitude

W. Longitude

(1) Intersection with ME shoreline
(2) U.S. Canada maritime boundary
(3) East-facing shoreline of Nantucket, MA
(4) North-facing shoreline of Nantucket, MA
(5) South-facing shoreline of Cape Cod, MA

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

163

Proposed Action
Measures to Meet Mortality Objectives

GB Winter Flounder Trimester TAC Area
Point
GB1
GB2
GB3
GB4
GB5
GB6
GB7
GB8
GB9
GB10
GB11
GB12
GB13
GB14
GB15
GB16
GB17
GB18
GB19
GB20
GB1

N. Latitude

W. Longitude

42° 20’
42° 20’
41° 50’
41° 50’
40° 30’
40° 30’
40° 40’
40° 40’
40° 50’
40° 50’
41° 00’
41° 00’
41° 10’
41° 10’
41° 20’
41° 20’
41° 10’
41° 10’
41° 00’
41° 00’
42° 20’

68° 50’
67° 40’
67° 40’
(1)
65° 40’
66° 40’
66° 40’
66° 50’
66° 50’
67° 00’
67° 00’
67° 10’
67° 10’
67° 00’
67° 40’
68° 10’
68° 10’
68° 20’
68° 20’
68° 50’
68° 50’

(1) U.S. Canada maritime boundary
GOM Winter Flounder Trimester TAC Area
Point
GOM1
GOM2
GOM3
GOM4
GOM5

N. Latitude

W. Longitude

42° 50’
42° 50’
42° 20’
42° 20’
(2)

(1)
69° 40’
69° 40’
70° 00’
70° 00’

(1) Intersection with MA shoreline
(2) North-facing shoreline of Cape Cod, MA
SNE/MA Winter Flounder Trimester TAC Area I
Point
SNE/MA1
SNE/MA2
SNE/MA3
SNE/MA4
SNE/MA5
SNE/MA6
SNE/MA7
SNE/MA8
SNE/MA9
SNE/MA10
SNE/MA11
SNE/MA1

N. Latitude

W. Longitude

42° 20’
42° 20’
41° 00’
41° 00’
41° 10’
41° 10’
41° 20’
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
42° 20’

70° 00’
68° 50’
68° 50’
69° 30’
69° 30’
69° 50’
69° 50’
70° 00’
70° 00’
70° 00’
70° 00’
70° 00’

(1) East-facing shoreline of Nantucket, MA
(2) North-facing shoreline of Nantucket, MA
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

164

Proposed Action
Measures to Meet Mortality Objectives

(3) South-facing shoreline of Cape Cod, MA
(4) North-facing shoreline of Cape Cod, MA
SNE/MA Winter Flounder Trimester TAC Area II
Point
SNE/MA12
SNE/MA13
SNE/MA14
SNE/MA15
SNE/MA16
SNE/MA17
SNE/MA18
SNE/MA19
SNE/MA20
SNE/MA21

N. Latitude

W. Longitude

(1)
41° 20’
41° 20’
41° 20’
41° 20’
(5)
39° 50’
39° 50’
40° 00’
40° 00’

71° 10’
71° 10’
(2)
(3)
(4)
70° 00’
70° 00’
71° 40’
71° 40’
(6)

(1) Intersection with RI shoreline
(2) West-facing shoreline of Martha’s Vineyard, MA
(3) East-facing shoreline of Martha’s Vineyard, MA
(4) West-facing shoreline of Nantucket, MA
(5) South-facing shoreline of Nantucket, MA

(6) Intersection with NJ shoreline
Redfish Trimester TAC Area
Point
RF1
RF2
RF3
RF4
RF5
RF6
RF7
RF8
RF9
RF10
RF11
RF12
RF13
RF14
RF15
RF16
RF17
RF18
RF19
RF20

N. Latitude

W. Longitude

(1)
43° 40’
43° 40’
43° 20’
43° 20’
(2)
42° 53.1'
(2)
41° 20’
41° 20’
41° 10’
41° 10’
41° 00’
41° 00’
41° 10’
41° 10’
41° 20’
(3)
(4)
(5)

69° 20’
69° 20’
69° 00’
69° 00’
67° 40’
67° 40’
67° 44.4'
67° 40’
67° 40’
68° 10’
68° 10’
68° 20’
68° 20’
69° 30’
69° 30’
69° 50’
69° 50’
70° 00’
70° 00’
70° 00’

(1) Intersection with ME shoreline
(2) U.S. Canada maritime boundary
(3) East-facing shoreline of Nantucket, MA
(4) North-facing shoreline of Nantucket, MA
(5) South-facing shoreline of Cape Cod, MA

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

165

Proposed Action
Measures to Meet Mortality Objectives

White Hake Trimester TAC Area
Point
RF1
RF2
RF3
RF4
RF5
RF6
RF7
RF8
RF9
RF10
RF11
RF12
RF13
RF14
RF15
RF16
RF17
RF18
RF19
RF20

N. Latitude

W. Longitude

(1)
43° 40’
43° 40’
43° 20’
43° 20’
(2)
42° 53.1'
(2)
41° 20’
41° 20’
41° 10’
41° 10’
41° 00’
41° 00’
41° 10’
41° 10’
41° 20’
(3)
(4)
(5)

(1) Intersection with ME shoreline
(2) U.S. Canada maritime boundary
(3) East-facing shoreline of Nantucket, MA
(4) North-facing shoreline of Nantucket, MA
(5) South-facing shoreline of Cape Cod, MA
Pollock Trimester TAC Area
Point
RF1
RF2
RF3
RF4
RF5
RF6
RF7
RF8
RF9
RF10
RF11
RF12
RF13
RF14
RF15
RF16
RF17
RF18
RF19
RF20

N. Latitude

W. Longitude

(1)
43° 40’
43° 40’
43° 20’
43° 20’
(2)
42° 53.1'
(2)
41° 20’
41° 20’
41° 10’
41° 10’
41° 00’
41° 00’
41° 10’
41° 10’
41° 20’
(3)
(4)
(5)

(1) Intersection with ME shoreline
(2) U.S. Canada maritime boundary
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

166

Proposed Action
Measures to Meet Mortality Objectives

(3) East-facing shoreline of Nantucket, MA
(4) North-facing shoreline of Nantucket, MA
(5) South-facing shoreline of Cape Cod, MA
Atlantic Wolfish Trimester TAC Area
Point
ATWLF1
ATWLF2
ATWLF3
ATWLF4
ATWLF5
ATWLF6
ATWLF7
ATWLF8
ATWLF9
ATWLF10
ATWLF11
ATWLF12
ATWLF13
ATWLF14
ATWLF15
ATWLF16
ATWLF17
ATWLF18
ATWLF19
ATWLF20
ATWLF21
ATWLF22
ATWLF23

N. Latitude

W. Longitude

(1)
43° 40’
43° 40’
43° 20’
43° 20’
43° 00’
43° 00’
42° 50’
42° 50’
42° 20’
42° 20’
41° 20’
41° 20’
41° 10’
41° 10’
41° 00’
41° 00’
41° 10’
41° 10’
41° 20’
(2)
(3)
(4)

69° 20’
69° 20’
69° 00’
69° 00’
69° 10’
69° 10’
69° 20’
69° 20’
69° 40’
69° 40’
67° 40’
67° 40’
68° 10’
68° 10’
68° 20’
68° 20’
69° 30’
69° 30’
69° 50’
69° 50’
70° 00’
70° 00’
70° 00’

(1) Intersection with ME shoreline
(2) East-facing shoreline of Nantucket, MA
(3) North-facing shoreline of Nantucket, MA
(4) South-facing shoreline of Cape Cod, MA

Stocks Exempt from Stock Area Closures
Catching ninety percent of a TAC/ACL of northern windowpane flounder, southern windowpane
flounder, ocean pout, or Atlantic halibut will not result in closing a stock area to groundfish
fishing. When sixty percent of the TAC/ACL for these stocks is projected to be caught, the
Regional Administrator will have the authority to specify a trip limit that is calculated to prevent
the TAC/ACL from being exceeded prior to the end of the fishing year.
Rationale: Windowpane flounders, ocean pout, and Atlantic halibut are typically incidental
catches in the groundfish fishery – they are rarely targeted. In order to avoid closing the
groundfish fishery because catches of these minor stocks approach a TAC/ACL, the Regional
Administrator is given the ability to establish trip limits to further discourage any possible
targeting of these stocks if necessary to reduce the likelihood the TAC/ACL will be exceeded.
Upon implementation of the amendment, possession of these stocks is prohibited, but this could
be change in a future action and so the authority to implement trip limits is included for these
stocks.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

167

Proposed Action
Measures to Meet Mortality Objectives

White Hake Possession Limit
In FY 2012, the white hake possession limit will be reduced to 500 lbs./DAS with a maximum of
2,000 lbs./trip.
Rationale: White hake is widely distributed (see Table 28). Because the TAC/ACL is expected to
be small while white hake is rebuilt, there is a concern that approaching this TAC/ACL could
result in a closure of the entire fishery. The reduced possession limit is intended to discourage
targeting white hake in order to reduce the likelihood of an area-wide shutdown.
Catch Monitoring
• In FY 2012, twenty percent of all trips (selected on a random basis) must be verified by
an independent, third-party weighmaster that meets standards established by the NMFS.
Funding of this program is the responsibility of the industry. Non-sector vessels can use any
vendor approved pursuant to the sector monitoring requirements of section 4.2.3.5.3.
• When monitoring progress towards the TAC during the fishing year, NMFS will consider
both landings and discards. If near real-time observer information is available, it will be used
to provide an in-season estimate of discards. If this information is not available, a discard
estimate will be developed using the proportion of catch discarded according to the most
recent assessment or PDT calculation.

4.3.7.2

Recreational Fishery Accountability Measures

ACLs for the recreational fishery will be established as described in section 4.2.1, consistent with
the commercial/recreational allocation of groundfish stocks described in section 4.2.5. As noted
in these sections, ACLs are set for the fishing year. The recreational ACL is set only for specific
stocks; it is anticipated that at least GOM haddock and GOM cod will have recreational ACLs
with the adoption of this amendment, but other stocks may be added in the future.
Recreational fishery catches in a fishing year will be monitored using the MRIP data. As soon as
data are available for the entire fishing year (expected to be by June or July of the fishing year
immediately following), recreational catches will be totaled for the fishing year and compared to
the ACL (see below for additional details on this comparison). If catches exceed the ACL, NMFS
will determine the measures necessary to prevent exceeding the ACL in future years following
consultation with the Council and publish the accountability measure that would be put into effect
using procedures consistent with the APA. Final measures will be published no later than
January. When evaluating recreational “catch”, the components of recreational catch that are used
will be the same as used in the most recent assessment for the stock in question. For example, if
the assessment uses recreational harvest (A+B1), then the ACL will be evaluated based on the
same components.
The recreational AM will be either/or adjustments to season, adjustments to minimum size, or
adjustments to bag limits. Separate AMs can be determined for the private boat and party/charter
components of the recreational fishery – that is, the AMs may be different for these two
components. With respect to the timing of AMs, it is anticipated that the AMs for an overage in
fishing year one will be implemented at the end of fishing year two. Depending on the specific
measures used, the AM may be in effect for an extended period. The applicable period will be
specified when the AM is announced.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

168

Proposed Action
Measures to Meet Mortality Objectives

When evaluating whether a recreational ACL has been exceeded to determine if the AM needs to
be implemented, the three-year average of recreational catch (calculated consistent with the catch
used on the assessment) will be compared to the three-year average of the ACL. This practice will
be phased in after implementation of this amendment as follows:
•
•
•

For FY 2010, FY 2010 harvest will be compared to the FY 2010 ACL and if
necessary AMs will be implemented in FY 2011.
For FY 2011, the average of FY 2010 and FY 2011 harvest will be compared to the
average of the FY 2010 and FY 2011 ACL and if necessary AMs will be
implemented in FY 2012.
In subsequent years, the three-year average of recreational harvest will be compared
to the three-year average of the recreational ACL and if necessary AMs will be
implemented in the year immediately following.

4.3.7.3

Multispecies Sector Accountability Measures

The sector administration provisions defined in section 4.2.3 incorporate accountability measures
designed to ensure that each sector – and as a result, sectors as a whole - do not contribute to
overfishing. To summarize those elements:
• The catch allocated to each sector is based on the Annual Catch Limit established by the
Council (section 4.2.3). The ACL takes into account biological and management uncertainty
to reduce the risk of overfishing.
• Sectors are required to stop groundfish fishing when they are projected to have caught
their allocation for any groundfish stock.
• Reporting requirements are implemented to ensure monitoring of sector catches is timely
and accurate. These requirements include:
o Weekly catch reporting to NMFS.
o Identification of specific landing ports.
o Notice to NMFS when catches approach a defined threshold.
o At-sea and shoreside monitoring requirements
• Sectors are provided opportunities to “balance” catches with their allocation through the
trading of annual catch entitlements between sectors.
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

169

Proposed Action
Measures to Meet Mortality Objectives

• If a sector exceeds its allocation in a given year, and cannot balance its catch and
allocation through the trading of annual catch entitlements, then its allocation in the following
year is reduced by the overage (see section 4.2.3).

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

170

Alternatives to the Proposed Action
Updates to Status Determination Criteria and Formal Rebuilding Programs

5.0 Alternatives to the Proposed Action
5.1

Updates to Status Determination Criteria and Formal
Rebuilding Programs

5.1.1

Revised Status Determination Criteria

5.1.1.1

Option 1 – No Action

Under this option, the status determination criteria adopted by Amendment 13 would not be
changed. Amendment 13 established that there are two elements to these criteria. First, the
criteria are specified as a parameter that describes a quantity. Second, the current numerical
estimate of that parameter is determined. Changes in the parameter – such as using an index –
based proxy rather than an estimate of SSBMSY for the minimum biomass threshold – requires a
management action by the Council. Changes in the numerical estimate do not normally require a
management action with the exception of change that may result from the 2008 review of stock
status.
The parameters that were adopted by Amendment 13 are listed in Table 30. The numerical
estimates of these parameters that were adopted by Amendment 13 are listed in Table 31.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

171

Alternatives to the Proposed Action
Updates to Status Determination Criteria and Formal Rebuilding Programs

Table 30 – Amendment 13 status determination criteria

Stock

Biomass Target

Minimum
Biomass
Threshold

Maximum Fishing
Mortality
Threshold

Fishing Mortality
Target

GOM Cod
GB Cod
GB Haddock
GOM Haddock

SSBMSY
SSBMSY
SSBMSY
BMSY Proxy/Fall
Trawl Survey
Index
SSBMSY

½ Btarget
½ Btarget
½ Btarget
½ Btarget

FMSY
FMSY
FMSY
FMSY Proxy/Relative
Exploitation Index

75% of FMSY
75% of FMSY
75% of FMSY
75% of FMSY

½ Btarget

FMSY

75% of FMSY

SSBMSY

½ Btarget

FMSY

75% of FMSY

SSBMSY

½ Btarget

FMSY

75% of FMSY

SSBMSY
SSBMSY
SSBMSY

½ Btarget
½ Btarget
½ Btarget

FMSY
FMSY
FMSY

75% of FMSY
75% of FMSY
75% of FMSY

BMSY

½ Btarget

FMSY (1)

75% of FMSY

SSBMSY

½ Btarget

FMSY

75% of FMSY

SSBMSY
BMSY Proxy/Fall
Survey Index
(> 60 cm fish)
BMSY Proxy/ Fall
Survey Index

½ Btarget
½ Btarget

F50% proxy for FMSY
FMSY Proxy/Relative
Exploitation Index
(> 60 cm fish)
FMSY Proxy/
Relative Exploitation
Index
FMSY Proxy/Relative
Exploitation Index
FMSY Proxy/Relative
Exploitation Index
FMSY Proxy/Relative
Exploitation Index
FMSY (1)

75% of FMSY
75% of FMSY

GB Yellowtail
Flounder
Cape Cod/GOM
Yellowtail
Flounder
SNE/MA
yellowtail
flounder
American Plaice
Witch Flounder
Gulf of Maine
Winter Flounder
GB Winter
Flounder
SNE/MA Winter
Flounder
Acadian Redfish
White Hake

Pollock

Windowpane
Flounder (North)
Windowpane
Flounder (South)
Ocean Pout
Atlantic Halibut

BMSY Proxy/Fall
Survey Index
BMSY Proxy/Fall
Survey Index
BMSY Proxy/Fall
Survey Index
BMSY

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

½ Btarget

½ Btarget
½ Btarget
½ Btarget
½ Btarget

172

75% of FMSY

75% of FMSY
75% of FMSY
75% of FMSY
75% of FMSY

Alternatives to the Proposed Action
Updates to Status Determination Criteria and Formal Rebuilding Programs
Table 31 – Amendment 13 numerical estimates of status determination criteria.
1. Total biomass, metric tons
2. Unit is total stock biomass for fish >= 60 cm., mt
3. Unit is biomass weighted F
4. Survey based equivalents developed by GARM 2002
NUMERICAL ESTIMATE OF STATUS DETERMINATION CRITERIA
SPECIES
STOCK
BTHRESHOLD
FMSY
Ftarget
BTARGET
(metric tons)
(metric tons)
(Maximum fishing
(at biomass target)
mortality)
GB
216,800
108,400
0.18
0.14
COD
GOM
82,800
41,400
0.23
0.17
GB
250,300
125,150
0.26
.20
HADDOCK
GOM
22.17 kg/tow
11.09 kg/tow
0.23C/I
0.17 C/I
GB
58,800
29,400
0.25
0.19
YELLOWTAIL
SNE/MA
69,500
34,750
0.26
0.20
FLOUNDER
CC/GOM
12,600
6,300
0.17
0.13
28,600
14,300
0.17
0.13
AMERICAN PLAICE
25,240
12,620
0.23
0.17
WITCH FLOUNDER
GB
9,400(1)
4,700
0.32
0.24
WINTER
GOM
4,100
2,050
0.43
0.32
FLOUNDER
SNE/MA
30,100
15,050
0.32
0.24
236,700
118,350
0.04
0.03
REDFISH
14,700(2)
7,350
0.29
0.22
WHITE HAKE2
7.70 kg/tow
3.35 kg/tow
0.55 C/I
0.41 C/I
3.0 kg/tow
1.5 kg/tow
5.88 C/I
4.41 C/I
POLLOCK
North
0.94 kg/tow
0.47 kg/tow
1.11 C/I
0.83
WINDOWPANE
FLOUNDER
South
0.92 kg/tow
0.46 kg/tow
0.98 C/I
0.735 C/I
4.9 kg/tow
2.95 kg/tow
0.31 C/I
0.23 C/I
OCEAN POUT
5,400(1)
2,700
0.06
0.4
ATLANTIC HALIBUT

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

173

MSY
(metric tons)
35,200
16,600
52,900
5,100
12,900
14,200
2,300
4,900
4,375
3,000
1,500
10,600
8,200
4,200
17,600
1,000
900
1,500
300

Alternatives to the Proposed Action
Updates to Status Determination Criteria and Formal Rebuilding Programs

5.1.2 ABC Control Rules
The No Action alternative would keep in place the MSY control rules adopted by Amendment 13 (Table
32).
Table 32 – Amendment 13 MSY control rules. Target fishing mortality rates are 75 percent of the control rule
mortality.
For all stocks, when stock size is less than the threshold biomass the F will be as established by the formal rebuilding
program.

SPECIES

STOCK

GB
COD
GOM
GB
HADDOCK
GOM
GB
YELLOWTAIL SNE
FLOUNDER
MID-Atl.
Cape Cod
AMERICAN PLAICE
WITCH FLOUNDER
GB
WINTER
GOM
FLOUNDER
SNE/MA
REDFISH
WHITE HAKE
POLLOCK
WINDOWPANE North
FLOUNDER
South
OCEAN POUT
ATLANTIC HALIBUT

MSY CONTROL RULE
F calculated to rebuild to Bmsy in 10 years when ½ Bmsy< B < Btarget
F calculated to rebuild to Bmsy in 10 years when ½ Bmsy< B < Btarget
F calculated to rebuild to Bmsy in 10 years when ½ Bmsy< B < Btarget
F calculated to rebuild to Bmsy in 10 years when ½ Bmsy< B < Btarget
F calculated to rebuild to Bmsy in 10 years when ½ Bmsy< B < Bmsy
F calculated to rebuild to Bmsy in 10 years when ½ Bmsy< B < Bmsy
F calculated to rebuild to Bmsy in 10 years when ½ Bmsy< B < Btarget
F calculated to rebuild to Bmsy in 10 years when ½ Bmsy< B < Btarget
F calculated to rebuild to Bmsy in 10 years when ½ Bmsy< B < Btarget
F calculated to rebuild to Bmsy in 10 years when ½ Bmsy< B < Btarget
F calculated to rebuild to Bmsy in 10 years when ½ Bmsy< B < Btarget
F calculated to rebuild to Bmsy in 10 years when ½ Bmsy< B < Bmsy
F calculated to rebuild to Bmsy in 10 years when ½ Bmsy< B < Bmsy
F calculated to rebuild to Bmsy in 10 years when ½ Bmsy< B < Btarget
F calculated to rebuild to Bmsy in 10 years when ½ Bmsy< B < Bmsy
F calculated to rebuild to Bmsy in 10 years when ½ Bmsy< B < Btarget
F calculated to rebuild to Bmsy in 10 years when ½ Bmsy< B < Btarget
F calculated to rebuild to Bmsy in 10 years when ½ Bmsy< B < Btarget
F calculated to rebuild to Bmsy in 10 years when ½ Bmsy< B < Btarget
F=0 until stock is rebuilt (provisional control law)

5.1.3 Revised mortality targets for formal rebuilding programs
5.1.3.1

Option 1 – No Action

Under this option, the rebuilding fishing mortality rates adopted by Amendment 13 and Framework 42 (GB
yellowtail flounder) would continue to guide management actions. These fishing mortality rates are
considered as a package and not on a stock by stock basis – that is, all rebuilding fishing mortality targets
must not change for this option to be selected.
There were three rebuilding strategies adopted by Amendment 13. First, for stocks that were not determined
to be overfished, formal rebuild programs were not adopted and the goal was to prevent overfishing while
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

174

Alternatives to the Proposed Action
Updates to Status Determination Criteria and Formal Rebuilding Programs

achieving optimum yield. Second, the adaptive strategy strove to reduce fishing mortality to FMSY through
2008, and then to the mortality necessary to rebuild the stock by the end of the rebuilding period. The
adaptive strategy was adopted for GOM cod, GOM haddock, GB haddock, redfish, SNE/MA winter
flounder, windowpane flounder (south), and ocean pout. Third, a phased reduction rebuilding strategy
sought to reduce fishing mortality in a series of steps over time. This strategy was adopted for GB cod,
American plaice, CC/GOM yellowtail flounder, SNE/MA yellowtail flounder, and white hake. Subsequent
to Amendment 13, FW 42 adopted an adaptive rebuilding strategy for GB yellowtail flounder. The
rebuilding fishing mortality rates that resulted from these approaches are shown in Table 33.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

175

Alternatives to the Proposed Action
Updates to Status Determination Criteria and Formal Rebuilding Programs

Table 33 – Rebuilding fishing mortality rates as adopted by Amendment 13 and FW 42.
Boldfaced italics identify phased reduction strategies; other rebuilding programs use the adaptive strategy. FW 42 illustrated two trajectories for GB yellowtail
flounder based on two candidate assessment formulations. The second row for this stock reflects the Major Change assessment model that has been used for
management advice.
SPECIES
STOCK Rebuilt Year /
Fishing mortality rates for adopted rebuilding programs
Probability of
Success
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2026/50%
Cod
GB
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
(add ten years)
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
GOM
2014/50%
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
GB
2014/50%
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
Haddock
GOM
2014/50%
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
GB
2014/75%
NA
NA
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
Yellowtail Flounder
NA
NA
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.135
0.135
0.135
0.135
0.135
2014/50%
SNE/MA
0.37
0.37
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
2023/50%
CC/GOM
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.13
0.13
(add ten years)
2014/50%

American Plaice

0.13

0.09

0.23

0.17

0.15

No formal rebuilding program required (see overfishing discussion)

Witch Flounder
Winter Flounder

No formal rebuilding program required

GOM

No formal rebuilding program required

SNE/MA

2014/50%

0.32

0.23

Redfish

2051/50%

0.01

White Hake

2014/50%

1.03

0.23

0.49

0.01

No formal rebuilding program required

Pollock
Windowpane
Flounder

North
South

(1)

Ocean Pout
Atlantic Halibut

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

No formal rebuilding program required
2014/50%

0.98

2014/50%
UNK

0.03

176

0.98

0.49

0.03
0.03
0.03
0.01
0.01
0.01
Insufficient information to calculate rebuilding mortality

Alternatives to the Proposed Action
Fishery Program Administration

5.2

Fishery Program Administration

5.2.1 Annual Catch Limits
5.2.1.1

Option 1 – No Action

If this option is selected, a process for implementing Annual Catch Limits (ACLs) will not be
adopted in this action. This option would not comply with current legal requirements and was not
adopted.

5.2.2 Addition of Atlantic Wolffish to the Management Unit
5.2.2.1

Option 1 – No Action

Atlantic wolffish would not be added to the management unit.

5.2.2.2

Essential Fish Habitat for Atlantic Wolffish

5.2.2.2.1 Introduction
The 1996 amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act,
known as the Sustainable Fisheries Act (SFA), emphasized the importance of habitat protection to
healthy fisheries and strengthened the ability of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
and the Councils to protect and conserve the habitat of marine, estuarine, and anadromous finfish,
mollusks, and crustaceans. This habitat is termed "essential fish habitat" (EFH) and is broadly
defined to include "those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding,
or growth to maturity".
The New England Fishery Management Council designated essential fish habitat for each species
it manages in the 1998 Essential Fish Habitat Omnibus Amendment (Amendment 11 to the
Multispecies FMP). Amendment 12 (2000) added Offshore Hake to the Multispecies FMP and
designated EFH for the species. Among other measures, Amendment 16 to the Multispecies FMP
adds Atlantic wolffish to the management unit and designates EFH for the species.

5.2.2.2.2 EFH Designation Options for Atlantic Wolffish
Two alternatives to the Proposed Action were considered for designating EFH for Atlantic
wolffish.
Option 1—No EFH Designation
Considered the “no action” alternative, this approach would not designate EFH for Atlantic
wolffish. According to the Magnuson-Stevens Act, however, the Regional Fishery Management
Councils are mandated to designate EFH for each species managed under an FMP. Thus, this
alternative would not be in compliance with the Magnuson-Stevens Act. There would be no EFH
Text Description for this alternative.
Text descriptions
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

177

Alternatives to the Proposed Action
Fishery Program Administration

No text descriptions are required for this Option.
Maps
No EFH maps are required for this Option.

Option 3—NMFS Survey Data
This option would base the EFH designation on catch per unit effort data from the NMFS trawl
survey. This option is broadly consistent with the EFH designations for other species under
Multispecies Amendments 11 and 12, and also with Phase I of the Omnibus EFH Amendment 2
(in preparation).
Text descriptions
Eggs
Essential fish habitat for wolffish eggs is described as bottom habitats of the continental shelf and
slope within the Gulf of Maine south to Cape Cod, and on Georges Bank between 40 and 240
meters. In the Gulf of Maine, spawning is thought to occur during September and October, and
there is a 3-9 month incubation period prior to hatching; thus wolffish eggs are assumed to be
present throughout most of the year. Wolffish eggs are deposited in rocky substrates and brooded
in nests, which are guarded by males for some period but perhaps all the way until hatching. The
temperature range for wolffish eggs is assumed to be the temperature range in which adult
wolffish were captured in the NMFS trawl survey, 0 to 14.3° C. Salinity or dissolved oxygen
preferences were not reported, however, wolffish are not known to occur in brackish or estuarine
waters, and it is assumed that the offshore waters they inhabit are well-mixed/oxygenated.
Larvae
Essential fish habitat for wolffish larvae is described as the surface to the seafloor across the
predominant depth and distribution range identified for the species, 40 to 240 meters within the
Gulf of Maine south to Cape Cod, and on Georges Bank. Larvae remain close to the bottom and
the hatching site, presumably using rocky substrates for shelter. Because wolffish appear to be
largely sedentary and the larvae do not appear to have a long (if any) pelagic stage, the
temperature range for larval wolffish is assumed to be the temperature range in which adult
wolffish were captured in the NMFS trawl survey, 0 to 14.3° C. Salinity or dissolved oxygen
preferences were not reported, however, wolffish are not known to occur in brackish or estuarine
waters, and it is assumed that the offshore waters they inhabit are well-mixed/oxygenated.
Juveniles
Wolffish in the Gulf of Maine reach maturity at age 5-6 years, so fish younger than this age
would be considered juveniles. Essential fish habitat for wolffish juveniles is described as bottom
habitats of the continental shelf and slope within the Gulf of Maine south to Cape Cod, and on
Georges Bank. Substrate preferences range from large stones and rocks, used for shelter and
nesting, to softer substrates where feeding occurs. The depth range of Atlantic wolffish in this
region ranges from 40 to 240 meters. The preferred temperature range for adult wolffish is
assumed to be the temperature range within which they were caught in the NMFS trawl surveys,
0 to 14.3° C. Salinity or dissolved oxygen preferences were not reported, however, wolffish are
not known to occur in brackish or estuarine waters, and it is assumed that the offshore waters they
inhabit are well-mixed/oxygenated.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

178

Alternatives to the Proposed Action
Fishery Program Administration

Adults
Essential fish habitat for wolffish adults is described as bottom habitats of the continental shelf
and slope within the Gulf of Maine south to Cape Cod, and on Georges Bank. Substrate
preferences range from large stones and rocks, used for shelter and nesting, to softer substrates
where feeding occurs. The depth range of Atlantic wolffish in this region ranges from 40 to 240
meters. The preferred temperature range for adult wolffish is assumed to be the temperature range
within which they were caught in the NMFS trawl surveys, between 0 and 14.3° C. Salinity or
dissolved oxygen preferences were not reported, however, wolffish are not known to occur in
brackish or estuarine waters, and it is assumed that the offshore waters they inhabit are wellmixed/oxygenated.
Text description methods
Text descriptions are based on the following information sources: Collette and Klein-MacPhee
(2002), Keith (2006), and DPWG (2009).
Maps (see next page)

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

179

Alternatives to the Proposed Action
Fishery Program Administration
Map 2 – Atlantic wolffish Option 3(a), all life stages (50% threshold)

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

180

Alternatives to the Proposed Action
Fishery Program Administration
Map 3 - Atlantic wolffish Option 3(b), all life stages (75% threshold)

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

181

Alternatives to the Proposed Action
Fishery Program Administration
Map 4 – Atlantic wolffish Option 3(c), all life stages (90% threshold)

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

182

Alternatives to the Proposed Action
Fishery Program Administration
Map 5 – Atlantic wolffish Option 3(d), all life stages (100% threshold)

Mapping methods
Wolffish are considered a data poor stock, and the modern scientific literature on the species is
limited. Because they are typically found in complex habitats with large stones and rocks that
provide shelter and nesting sites (Pavlov and Novikov 1993), and are believed to be relatively
sedentary with localized populations, relatively few Atlantic wolffish have been sampled by
either the NMFS bottom trawl survey. However, the NMFS bottom trawl survey (1968 - 2007)
provides the best available information on the distribution and relative abundance Atlantic
wolffish.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

183

Alternatives to the Proposed Action
Fishery Program Administration

Atlantic wolffish EFH maps were developed using methods broadly consistent with those used in
Amendments 11 and 12 to the Multispecies FMP, but with several important differences. NMFS
bottom trawl survey data from 1963-1998 was used for EFH designated in Amendments 11 and
12 to the multispecies FMP, but more recent data (through 2007) is now available. The earliest
survey used was changed from 1963 to 1968 because from 1963-1967 only fall surveys were
conducted. Detailed descriptions of the surveys and databases used by the Council in the EFH
designation process, including the sampling protocols and methods, are provided in Appendix C
of the 1998 EFH Omnibus Amendment. A discussion of the limitations associated with using
these data and information sources as the basis for designating EFH is provided in Appendix D of
the 1998 EFH Omnibus Amendment.
This approach was developed based on the available data and is consistent with the regulations
and technical guidance developed by NMFS on how to designate EFH based on the level of
information available. The EFH Final Rule describes four levels of information to be used, from
basic presence/absence data (Level 1) to habitat-specific production data (Level 4). Relative
abundance data from the NMFS surveys are considered Level 2 data. As such, the regulations
and technical guidance indicated use of relative abundance data to differentiate areas with
relatively greater abundance of a species as EFH in contrast to areas with relatively lower
abundance. Ecologically, it follows that one can infer that areas of relatively high abundance or
density are indicative of more suitable habitats. Research has demonstrated that as populations
decline, their range contracts and they focus in on areas of best suited habitat.
As with the Council’s previous EFH designations, the spatial extents of those designations, as
reflected in the EFH maps are based upon an index of catch-per unit- effort (CPUE) data from the
NMFS’ Bottom Trawl surveys. Survey catches from all tows in U.S. waters (regardless of strata)
for all years (1968-2007) were binned and summed (by number of fish) for each ten minute
square of latitude and longitude. Only those squares that had greater than three samples and at
least one positive catch were selected.
In order to minimize the effects of occasional large catches on the averages, catch data for each
tow were transformed by taking the natural logarithm of the catch + 1 (ln(catch + 1)), and then
back transformed. The mean of the back-transformed data was calculated for each ten minute
square across all years. These back-transformed means were ranked from highest to lowest.
Then, the cumulative percentage that each TMS made up of the total of the average catch rates for
all TMS was determined.
For each life history stage, the alternatives considered included: (1) the area corresponding to the
TMS that account for the top 50% of the cumulative abundance index, (2) the top 75% of the
cumulative abundance index, (3) the top 90% of cumulative abundance index, and (4) 100% of
the observed range of the species, i.e., the area covered by all TMS where at least one fish was
caught in at least three tows.
The EFH regulations require that EFH be designated only in U.S. waters, so while there may be
important Atlantic wolffish habitat on the Canadian side of the Hague Line, this area will not be
considered for EFH designation. Survey catches from the Canadian side of the Hague Line were
not used for the data ranking or for the mapping.

5.2.3 Sector administration provisions
The management measures proposed in this section relate to the process for establishing sector
allocations in the multispecies fishery. This section considered updating Section 3.4.16.1 of the
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

184

Alternatives to the Proposed Action
Fishery Program Administration

final Amendment 13 SEIS (Sector Allocation). Rather than only identify changes to sector
administration policies in this section, the section is a complete rewrite of the entire program.
Once final choices are made, this section will serve as a summary of all groundfish sector policies
in effect. All of the sector policy changes proposed in this section will be implemented at the
beginning of fishing year 2010 (May 1, 2010). Only those alternatives to sector policies that were
considered, but not adopted, are described in the following sector administration sections. Where
appropriate, the no action alternative is identified relative to each issue for which changes or
additions are being considered.

5.2.3.1

Sector Definition/Formation of a Sector

This section clarifies the definition of a sector and sector formation and makes groundfish sectors
consistent with the Council’s sector policies.
No Action
Amendment 13 did not include a specific definition of what a sector is. The No Action option
would continue to leave this definition unstated. Amendment 13 did define how sectors would be
formed and indicated they would be self-selecting and voluntary and would submit a proposal and
an operations plan agreed upon by all members of the sector and approved by NMFS.
Revisions to Sector Definitions/Formation of a Sector
Only vessels with a limited access multispecies permit are eligible to join a multispecies sector.
The Council is considering two options for the treatment of permits that are in the Confirmation
of Permit History Category:
Option 1: (No Action) Confirmation of permit history (CPH) permits must be activated
in order to be associated with/join a sector (this is consistent with the Groundfish DAS
Leasing and Transfer Programs as adopted in Amendment 13.
Rationale: Under regulations implementing Amendment 13, permits in the CPH category cannot
join a sector. The rationale for this provision is unclear, but appears to relate to the idea that CPH
permits did not contribute to fishing mortality during the period prior to Amendment 13 and thus
should not contribute to sectors (or lease DAS) after the amendment’s adoption. CPH is not a
permanent category, however, and permits can be removed at any time. Vessel replacement
regulations allow the permits to be placed on any vessel, including skiffs, at any time. This
prohibition thus means only that there are administrative barriers to having a CPH permit join a
sector (or lease DAS). Option 2 acknowledges the reality of this situation and removes the
administrative barriers to having a CPH permit join a sector.

5.2.3.2

Preparation of a Sector Formation Proposal and Operations Plan

This section considers two options for the document that must be submitted in order to form a
sector.

5.2.3.2.1 Option 1 - No Action
If the No Action Alternative is selected, then requirements for the formation proposal and
operations plan submitted by a self-selecting sector remain the same and must have, at a
minimum, the following components:
• A list of all participants and a contract signed by all participants indicating their agreement to
abide by the operations plan accompanying the proposal.
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

185

Alternatives to the Proposed Action
Fishery Program Administration

•

With the implementation of Amendment 13, a sector’s operations plan must detail the
following:
o A list of all vessels that would be part of the sector including an indication for each
vessel of whether it would continue to fish;
o The original distribution of catch history or TACs;
o A detailed plan for consolidation of TACs or DAS, if any is desired, including a
detailing of the quantity and duration of any redistribution of TAC or DAS within the
sector;
o A plan and analysis to show how the sector will avoid exceeding their allocated
TACs (or target TACs if the allocation is in terms of DAS). This plan should include
provisions for monitoring and enforcement of the sector regulations, including
documentation of both landings and discards;
o Rules for entry and exit to the sector (see more on this in next section) including
procedures for removing or disciplining members of the sector who do not abide by
its rules. Rules for entry and exit must also define how catch or DAS history that is
developed by vessels participating in a sector is assigned to each vessel;
o

Procedure for notifying NMFS if a member is expelled from the sector for violation
of sector regulations.

Rationale: Option 1 merely restates the sector submission requirements that were included in
Amendment 13 as written in the regulations. Option 2 expands on the submission requirements to
require that sectors provide the Council additional details on reporting and monitoring and
participation in other fisheries so that the Council can better evaluate the impacts of the sector.

5.2.3.3

Allocation of Resources

5.2.3.3.1 General
No Action
Amendment 13 provided only a brief discussion on the allocation of resources to sectors.
While some parts of Amendment 13 said that sectors could request either a hard TAC or
DAS allocations, this section did not address how DAS allocations would be determined. The
calculation of landings history adopted a rolling five-year period except for GB cod, where
the period FY 1996 through FY 2001 was chosen for any sector formed during the period FY
2004 through FY 2007. Amendment 13 adopted the concept that the allocation of resources is
to the sector and not the individual permit holder. Amendment 13 also raised the concept that
the allocation of TACs to sectors should be consistent with the design of measures for the
common pool.
Rationale: This changes the sector provisions of Amendment 13 and clarifies how resources are
allocated to a sector. Sectors can no longer request an allocation of groundfish DAS based on the
DAS allocated to permits that join the sector. In addition, sectors fishing for groundfish must
have an allocation of all regulated groundfish stocks for which they qualify except halibut, ocean
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

186

Alternatives to the Proposed Action
Fishery Program Administration

pout, and windowpane flounder. This eliminates the situation where sectors could request
allocations of selected regulated groundfish stocks and modify effort controls to facilitate
targeting of other stocks.
TACs will not be allocated to sectors for Atlantic halibut, ocean pout, northern windowpane
flounder, and southern windowpane flounder because these stocks have small TACs, and vessels
have limited landings history. Allocating these stocks to sectors would complicate monitoring of
sector operations and would require a different scheme for determining each permit’s potential
sector contribution. Rather than complicate sector administration, sectors will be limited to
restrictions designed to discourage targeting of these stocks. For example, the catch of halibut is
limited to one fish per trip (similar measures may be needed for the three other stocks).

5.2.3.3.2 Guidance on Sector Overages
Amendment 13 addressed sector overages in broad terms but did not address the situation if a
sector disbands or members leave a sector the year following an overage. To be clear, in the
subsequent discussion the term “sector overage” means exceeding a TAC in year one after any
ACE transfers have occurred with the result that sector will receive a deduction of ACE in year
two.
No Action
Under No Action, the only guidance for addressing sector overages would be that contained in
Amendment 13. This guidance merely states that if a sector exceeds its allocation the overage is
deducted in the following year.
Rationale: If a sector exceeds its ACE in any given year, its allocation in the subsequent year is
reduced to account for the overage. This section specifies how exit of vessels from the sector
affects the overage provision.

5.2.3.3.3 U.S./Canada Area
Amendment 13 was silent on how sectors interact with the management program in the
U.S./Canada area. This section considers two options.

5.2.3.3.3.1

Option 1 - No Action

Under the No Action option, separate allocations will not be made for each portion of a stock that
is caught both inside and outside the US/Canada Area. No additional provisions are adopted to
address sector fishing in the U.S./Canada area.
Rationale: This measure ensures that common-pool and sector fishing vessels fishing in the
Eastern US/CA area do not adversely impact each other. It prevents one group from catching the
entire TAC in the area, closing it to the other group. This measure will initially apply only to
Eastern GB cod and Eastern GB haddock, but is written so that it can be applied to other stocks in
the future if necessary. As currently there is only on TAC for GB yellowtail flounder, this
provision does not apply to that stock, which does not have a specific TAC for the Eastern
US/CA area. Should the Eastern US/CA area be closed to limit catches of GB yellowtail flounder
by common pool vessels, sectors could request an exemption from that closure as long as they
have ACE remaining for the stocks in that area.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

187

Alternatives to the Proposed Action
Fishery Program Administration

5.2.3.3.4 Sector Baseline Calculations/Potential Sector Contributions
This section is a new section that considered different options for determining the amount of
resources allocated to sectors. Amendment 13 addressed this issue in a section labeled
“Allocation of resources” and adopted a specific time period for determining the share of a TAC
that each permit brings to a sector. This approach is included as the No Action option below. This
section also introduced new terms that better define the different elements used to determine
sector allocations and clarifies several issues with respect to the calculation of landings history
(for example, that live weight is used).

5.2.3.3.4.1

No Action Alternative (Status Quo/Amendment 13)

Allocation of resources will be based on the accumulated catch histories over the previous five
years for which data are available for each member of the self-selected sector, as described in
Amendment 13. For example, for sectors beginning operations in FY 2009, the baseline period
would be FY 2002 – FY 2006. Each permit’s landings for the time period are divided by the total
landings of the stock to determine each permit’s share.

5.2.3.3.4.2 Option 2 - 50% Landings History and 50% Vessel Baseline
Capacity for Landed Stocks FY 1996 – FY 2006
Under this alternative, landings history for each permit/stock will be calculated in the same
manner described above for Alternative 1. Vessel baseline capacity will be calculated using the
following formula:
(10L + HP) x (allocated “A” DAS) = baseline capacity
The portion allocated based on capacity applies only to stocks landed by the permit. The length
and horsepower characteristics of the capacity portion in the formula above will be fixed as of
January 29, 2004, which is consistent with the baseline established by NMFS for the Groundfish
DAS Leasing Program. The DAS used in this calculation are the baseline Category A DAS
assigned to a permit under FW 42, without including carry-over DAS, bonus for using largemesh, penalties, etc. For purposes of this calculation, the DAS allocated under FW 42 are
considered to be the permit’s Amendment 13 baseline Category A DAS as adjusted for FY 2006
by Framework 42.
The landings history share and the baseline capacity share for each permit will be averaged to
obtain a value for each stock. Under this alternative, each permit will receive history only for
groundfish stocks that it landed between FY 1996 and FY 2006.
Rationale: This option incorporates characteristics of the permit (vessel) that are believed to
contribute to fishing power and thus the value of the permit. By incorporating factors other than
landings history alone to determine the potential sector contribution for the permit, this option
takes into account that some permits may not have targeted groundfish during the time period but
may still have the ability to do so. This part of the formula only applies to stocks caught by the
permit. Note that the inclusion of other factors only contributes to the calculation for those
permits that have an allocation of Category A DAS. This formula effectively halves the landings
history for any permit that does not have Category A DAS allocated.

5.2.3.3.4.3 Option 3 - 50% Landings History and 50% Vessel Baseline
Capacity for All Stocks FY 1996 – FY 2006
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

188

Alternatives to the Proposed Action
Fishery Program Administration

Under this alternative, landings history for each permit/stock will be calculated in the same
manner described above for Alternative 1. Vessel baseline capacity will be calculated using the
following formula:
(10L + HP) x (allocated “A” DAS) = baseline capacity
The portion allocated based on capacity applies to all stocks for which ACE will be allocated.
The length and horsepower characteristics of the capacity portion in the formula above will be
fixed as of January 29, 2004, which is consistent with the baseline established by NMFS for the
Groundfish DAS Leasing Program. The DAS used in this calculation are the baseline Category A
DAS assigned to a permit under FW 42, without including carry-over DAS, bonus for using
large-mesh, penalties, etc. For purposes of this calculation, the DAS allocated under FW 42 are
considered to be the permit’s Amendment 13 baseline Category A DAS as adjusted for FY 2006
by Framework 42.
The landings history share and the baseline capacity share for each permit will be averaged to
obtain a value for each stock. This alternative is different from Alternative 2 in that every permit
will receive an allocation of every applicable groundfish stock.
Rationale: As with Option 2, this option incorporates permit characteristics into the potential
sector contribution calculation. Unlike Option 2, this component applies to all stocks, not just
those caught by the permit during the time period. This change means that every permit will be
assigned a potential sector contribution for every stock. This recognizes that under the DAS
system any permit has the potential to fish in any area and catch any stock.

5.2.3.3.4.4 Option 4 - 50% Landings History and 50% A DAS for All
Stocks FY 1996 – FY 2006
Under this alternative, landings history for each permit/stock will be calculated in the same
manner described above for Alternative 1. Vessel baseline capacity will be represented by
allocated “A” DAS for all stocks for which ACE will be allocated. The DAS used in this
calculation are the baseline Category A DAS assigned to a permit under FW 42, without
including carry-over DAS, bonus for using large-mesh, penalties, etc. For purposes of this
calculation, the DAS allocated under FW 42 are considered to be the permit’s Amendment 13
baseline Category A DAS as adjusted by Framework 42. For purposes of this calculation, the
DAS allocated under FW 42 are considered to be the permit’s Amendment 13 baseline Category
A DAS as adjusted for FY 2006 by Framework 42.
The landings history share and the A DAS share for each permit will be averaged to obtain a
value for each stock.
Rationale: As with Option 2, this option incorporates permit characteristics into the potential
sector contribution calculation. Unlike Option 2 or Option 3, only the Category A DAS allocated
to the permit are considered. This option recognizes that length and horsepower may not have a
strong impact on catches by vessels using fixed gear. Similar to Option 3, the capacity component
in this option applies to all stocks, not just those caught by the permit during the time period. This
change means that every permit will be assigned a potential sector contribution for every stock.
This recognizes that under the DAS system any permit has the potential to fish in any area and
catch any stock.
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

189

Alternatives to the Proposed Action
Fishery Program Administration

Rationale: This option recognizes that vessels that are members of the two existing sectors made
investment decisions based on the qualification criteria adopted by Amendment 13. To change the
allocation method might disadvantage those vessels. This provision only applies to members of
the two sectors in FY 2007. A fixed pool of vessels has to be identified for this provision or else
each time a vessel enters or exits one of these sectors, the potential sector contribution for all
permits must be recalculated.

5.2.3.4

Mortality/Conservation Controls

This section is nearly a complete rewrite of a similar section that was in Amendment 13. It
addresses several issues that are raised by the adoption of ACLs and clarifies which elements of
groundfish catch are counted against a sector allocation.
No Action
If this section is not adopted, the language for mortality/conservation controls will be as in
Amendment 13. That language was limited to the following brief sentences: “Hard annual TACs
by species will be allocated to the sector as a whole. The sector would be required to submit
an operating plan for approval by the regional administrator. The plan would detail the
allocation of TAC within the group, how the catch of the sector would be monitored, and a
plan for operation or cease of operations once the TACs of one or more species were taken.
The plan would have to provide assurance that the sector would not exceed the target TACs
allocated to it (either through landings or discards).”

5.2.3.5

Monitoring and Enforcement

5.2.3.5.1 No Action
The only provisions for monitoring and enforcement that were included in Amendment 13 were
broad in nature. In various sections, Amendment 13 imposed the following requirements on
sectors:

• Sector operations plans needed to include a plan and analysis to show how the sector will
avoid exceeding their allocated TACs (or target TACs if the allocation is in terms of
DAS). This plan should include provisions for monitoring and enforcement of the sector
regulations, including documentation of both landings and discards. No specific standards
were identified.
• Rules for entry and exit to the sector including procedures for removing or disciplining
members of the sector who do not abide by its rules.
• It will be the responsibility of each sector to enforce any provisions adopted through
procedures established in the operations plan and agreed to through the sector contract.
Ultimately, a sector may desire to expel a member due to repeated violations of sector
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

190

Alternatives to the Proposed Action
Fishery Program Administration

provisions. Once a vessel enters into a sector, it cannot fish during that fishing year under
the regulations that apply to the common pool. In other words, if a vessel is expelled from
a sector, it cannot participate in the groundfish fishery during the remainder of that
fishing year.
• For the purposes of enforcement, a sector is a legal entity that can be subject to NMFS
enforcement action for violations of the regulations pertaining to sectors. Vessels
operating within a sector are responsible for judgments against the sector.
The No Action alternative would maintain these measures.

5.2.3.5.2 Enforcement
It will be the responsibility of each sector to enforce any provisions adopted through procedures
established in the operations plan and agreed to through the sector contract. Ultimately, a sector
may desire to expel a member due to repeated violations of sector provisions. Once a vessel
enters into a sector, it cannot fish during that fishing year under the regulations that apply to the
common pool. In other words, if a vessel is expelled from a sector, it cannot participate in the
groundfish fishery during the remainder of that fishing year.
For the purposes of enforcement, a sector is a legal entity that can be subject to NMFS
enforcement action for violations of the regulations pertaining to sectors. Vessels operating
within a sector are responsible for judgments against the sector. The following options are being
considered to further explain this concept.
Option 1: Sector regulations at 50 CFR 648.87(b)(2)(x) including the following sentence:
“Each Sector, vessel, and vessel operator and/or vessel owner participating in the Sector
may be charged jointly and severally for violations of Sector Operations Plan
requirements as well as any other applicable Federal regulations, resulting in an
assessment of civil penalties and permit sanctions pursuant to 15 CFR part 904.”
This sentence will be revised by removing the phrase “as well as any other applicable Federal
regulations:”
“Each Sector, vessel, and vessel operator and/or vessel owner participating in the Sector
may be charged jointly and severally for violations of Sector Operations Plan
requirements resulting in an assessment of civil penalties and permit sanctions pursuant
to 15 CFR part 904.”
Rationale: This modification to the regulation makes it clear that sectors are only jointly and
severally liable for violations of operation plan requirements, and not all existing federal
regulations. This is consistent with the language establishing sectors in Amendment 13.
Rationale: This option clarifies regulatory text to indicate that sectors are jointly liable for
overages of the TAC, and clarifies the repercussions of such overages.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

191

Alternatives to the Proposed Action
Fishery Program Administration

5.2.3.5.3 Sector Monitoring Requirements
Sector operations plans will specify how a sector will monitor its landings to assure that sector
landings do not exceed the sector allocation. At the end of the fishing year, NMFS will evaluate
landings using IVR, VMS, and any other available information to determine whether a sector has
exceeded any of its allocations based on the list of participating vessels submitted in the
operations plan.
The next paragraphs describe the requirements necessary for monitoring both landings and
discards. These sections add additional requirements to those currently in place (such as
weighmasters/dockside monitors for all landings, improved discard monitoring systems, etc.).
The range of alternative considered by the Council includes the current system (No Action) as
well as the system proposed below.

5.2.3.5.4 Standards for Sector Monitoring and Reporting Service Providers
Amendment 13 did not establish any requirements for the service providers that help sectors
monitor catches. This section proposes those requirements.

5.2.3.6

Sector Annual Reports

Current regulations require an annual report but Amendment 13 was unclear on the requirements
for that report. This section expands on those requirements.

5.2.3.6.1 No Action
Amendment 13 did not identify specific requirements for sector annual reports. The No Action
option would continue to leave this requirement vague.
Rationale: This measure clarifies the information that should be reported in annual reports so that
sectors can be evaluated.

5.2.3.7

Transfer of Annual Catch Entitlements (ACE)

Amendment 13 did not authorize transfer of ACE between sectors. This section considers
alternatives for such transfers.

5.2.3.7.1 Option 1 - No Action
If this option is selected, transfer of ACE between sectors will not be authorized.
Rationale: Allowing transfer of ACE provides flexibility for sectors to adjust their allocations to
account for unusual circumstances or to take advantage of other opportunities. For example, there
may be instances were a sector does not have an allocation for a stock that has an unusual
distribution due to oceanographic conditions – without allowing ACE transfer, the sector may be
forced to discard this stock and may have to cease fishing because of the discards. Allowing the
exchanges to continue for a period after the end of the fishing year provides a limited opportunity
for a sector to quota balance in the instances that the ACE was inadvertently exceeded. This
provision is not intended to allow sectors to exceed their ACE.
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

192

Alternatives to the Proposed Action
Fishery Program Administration

5.2.3.8

Sector Participation in Special Management Programs

5.2.3.8.1 No Action
This option would not adopt provisions to guide sector participation in special management
programs. Presumably sector vessels would be subject to the same provisions as non-sector
vessels, with the exception of the CA I Hook Gear Haddock SAP which adopted specific sector
provisions.

5.2.3.8.2 Closed Area I Hook Gear Haddock SAP
This SAP provides an opportunity to target GB haddock within CAI. The SAP already has
provisions that describe requirements for sectors and additional provisions are not proposed (but
see section 5.2.7 for possible SAP changes).

5.2.3.9

Interaction of Sector with Common Pool Vessels

This section modifies the provisions that relate to the interaction between sector and non-sector
(common pool) vessels.
No Action
Amendment 13 provided guidance on how sectors interact with common pool vessels. The
underlying concept was to create a system where sectors would not be responsible for
mortality overages by non-sector vessels, to the extent possible. While it is appropriate for
changes in stock condition to affect the amount of fish that the share represents, sectors
should not suffer if other sectors, or common pool vessels, exceed target or hard TACs and
create a need for mortality reductions. If a sector does not exceed its assigned TAC in a given
fishing year, but other sectors or common pool vessels do, the sector's quota [in absolute (not
share) terms] in the following years will not be reduced. This does not permanently change
the sector's percentage of the total TAC, however. In the extreme case, the total resources
available may be less than a sector's absolute quota. In this instance, the sector's share will be
temporarily increased by the percentage that other sectors exceeded their quota. As stock
conditions improve, the sector will keep this temporary increase in share until its annual
quota is the same as it was prior to the stock decline. The sector's permanent share will then
revert to its original share.

If a sector exceeds its TAC, the sector's quota will be reduced in the following year and the
sector may be subject to enforcement action. If the sector exceeds its TAC repeatedly, the
sector's share can be permanently reduced as a penalty or the sector's authorization to operate
withdrawn. If declining stock conditions result in a need to reduce fishing mortality, and all
sectors and common pool vessels have operated within target or hard TAC limits, a sector's
share will not be changed, but the amount this share represents may be due to reduced overall
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

193

Alternatives to the Proposed Action
Fishery Program Administration

TACs. If stock conditions improve, and a sector stays within its quota while other sectors do
not, the sector will receive a temporary increase in share equal to the amount that other
sectors exceeded their quota.
Some management provisions that apply to common pool vessels will also apply to any
vessel in a sector. This list may be modified through a framework adjustment. Measures that
are not included in this list maybe altered through a sector's operations plan, if approved by
NMFS. These are:
If quotas are allocated to a sector:
• Year round closed areas
• Permitting restrictions (vessel upgrades, etc.)
• Gear restrictions designed to minimize habitat impacts (roller gear restrictions, etc.)
• Reporting requirements (not including DAS reporting requirements)

5.2.4 Reporting Requirements
This measure proposed to add additional requirements for limited access groundfish vessels to
facilitate the monitoring of Annual Catch Limits (ACLs) and sectors.

5.2.4.1

Option 1 – No Action

Under the No Action option, no additional reporting requirements are adopted that are not
specified in other sections.

5.2.5 Allocation of Groundfish to the Commercial and Recreational
Groundfish Fisheries
5.2.5.1

Option 1 – No Action

At present, there is no allocation of groundfish made between the recreational groundfish fishery
(private boat/party/charter) and the commercial groundfish fishery. If this No Action option is
adopted, this situation will continue.

5.2.5.2 Option 2 – Commercial and recreational groundfish allocation for
certain stocks
An allocation will be made of certain regulated groundfish stocks to the commercial and
recreational components of the fishery. For this action, an allocation will be determined after
accounting for state waters catches taken outside of the FMP. An allocation will not be made in
the case of stocks that are not fully harvesting the ACL. An allocation will also not be made if the
recreational harvest, after accounting for state waters catches outside the management plan, is less
than five percent of the removals.
In those cases that meet the requirements to establish an allocation, a defined time period will be
used to calculate the allocation. The time periods that are being considered for each stock are
shown in Table 34; the Council will choose from these options for the Proposed Action. The
proportion allocated to these fisheries will be determined using the time periods shown in the
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

194

Alternatives to the Proposed Action
Fishery Program Administration

table based on the data that is used in GARM III assessments. When possible, the shares will be
determined by using the numbers of fish in the years caught (as used by the assessment:
harvested, landed, or discarded) by each component. The shares determined in this manner will
be applied to the ACL to determine the weight of catch available for each component. If the
number of fish caught be each component is not available, the shares will be calculated based on
weight. The proportion for each year will be calculated, and then the average proportion over the
time period will be the share for each component of the fishery. The proportions will be reviewed
consistent with the periodic assessment cycle, and if determined necessary, changes can be
implemented through a framework action. Any changes that are adopted will not affect the
implementation of accountability measures based on proportions that were in effect at the time of
the catches. This table also lists an estimate of the allocations that will result – this estimate has
not yet been adjusted for state waters catches. Allocations are not being considered at present for
SNE/MA winter flounder, GOM winter flounder, pollock, or GB cod, because current catches do
not meet the standard for an allocation. Allocations may be defined for these tocks in the future.

Table 34 – Proposed time periods for calculating the recreational and commercial share of the
groundfish ACL and preliminary estimate of recreational allocation that results. Note: not yet
adjusted for state waters catches not subject to the management plan.
Stock

Years

Preliminary Estimate

GOM Cod (1)

1996 - 2006

25.1%

GOM Haddock (1)

1996 - 2006

17.6%

5.2.6 Changes to the DAS Transfer and DAS Leasing Programs
5.2.6.1

Option 1 – No Action

If this option is selected, there will not be any changes made to the conservation tax charged by
the DAS leasing program or the DAS transfer program. DAS will be leased without any
conservation tax, while a twenty percent conservation tax will be charged for using the DAS
transfer program. A cap will remain on the number of DAS that can be leased by a permit: a
permit cannot lease more DAS than its allocation prior to Amendment 13.

5.2.6.2

Option 2 - DAS Transfer Program Conservation Tax

The Council will eliminating the conservation tax on DAS transfers, currently set at 20 percent. If
a change is made, transfers that have taken place before the change will be treated in one of two
ways:
Option B: Permits that have been previously charged a conservation tax will have their
tax refunded (consistent with the revised tax).
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

195

Alternatives to the Proposed Action
Fishery Program Administration

Rationale: There has been limited use of the DAS transfer program. Modifying or eliminating the
conservation tax may encourage use.

5.2.6.3

Option 3 - DAS Leasing Program Conservation Tax

The Council will consider setting a tax on DAS leasing that is equivalent to the tax adopted for
the DAS transfer program.
Rationale: Since the DAS can be acquired through the leasing program without a conservation
tax, this program may inhibit consolidation in the fishery. In addition, the program may not be
conservation neutral and may be increasing fishing mortality on some stocks. If the conservation
tax on the leasing program and the DAS transfer program are the same, it may encourage vessel
owners to consolidate permits, and if a tax is adopted it may reduce mortality impacts of the
leasing program.

5.2.6.4 Option 4 - DAS Transfer Program Conservation Tax Exemption
Window
An owner of multiple groundfish permits will be allowed to consolidate the DAS and catch
history of those permits onto a single vessel while exempt from the DAS conservation tax. The
period when such transfers will be exempt from the DAS transfer program conservation tax will
be limited to a specific time period, after which any use of the DAS transfer program will be
subject to the DAS transfer tax that is in effect. The time period considered for this exemption
window is between three months and one fishing year.
Rationale: This measure will encourage owners of multiple limited access groundfish permits to
consolidate their permits on one vessel. The limited period when such transfers are not subject to
the conservation tax will encourage permit holders to make this decision. Permit holders will
have reduced costs since they will no longer have to maintain vessels (skiffs) to hold additional
permits, will not have to renew those permits annually, and will not have to file VTRs for those
permits. To the extent that vessels take advantage of this opportunity, this will reduce the
administrative burden on NMFS of processing DAS leases among vessels with the same owner. It
will also reduce the risk that some of those permits may be reactivated in the future, either in the
groundfish fishery or other fisheries.

5.2.7 Special Management Programs
5.2.7.1

Incidental Catch TACs

196

Alternatives to the Proposed Action
Fishery Program Administration

Incidental catch TACs would not be set for pollock and the incidental catch TACs would not be
based on the ACL amount.

5.2.7.2

Closed Area I Hook Gear Haddock SAP Revisions

5.2.7.2.1 Option 1 – No Action
If this option is selected there will not be any changes to the SAP regulations. The area of the
SAP will continue to be as shown in Figure 3. The season for the SAP will continue to be October
1 to December 31. The season will continue to be split in half, with one half of the season for
sector vessels and the other half for common pool vessels. The TAC for GB haddock caught in
the SAP will continue to be divided equally between sector and common pool vessels.

5.2.7.3

Eastern U.S./Canada Haddock SAP

This SAP provides an opportunity to target GB haddock in the Eastern U.S./Canada area,
including a small portion of CAII.

5.2.7.3.1 Option 1 - No Action
The SAP is scheduled to terminate on December 31, 2008. If the No Action alternative is
selected, the SAP will not be re-opened.

5.2.7.4

Closed Area II Yellowtail Flounder SAP

5.2.7.4.1 Option 1 – No Modifications
If this option is selected, the CAII yellowtail flounder SAP will not be modified to provide an
opportunity to target GB haddock within the SAP area.

5.2.7.5

SNE/MA Winter Flounder SAP

No Action
The existing SAP provisions adopted in Amendment 13 allow a vessel fishing for fluke west of
72-30W, using mesh authorized by the fluke plan and not on a groundfish DAS, is allowed to
retain and land up to 200 lbs. of winter flounder subject to the following restrictions:

• Vessel must possess a valid federal fluke permit
• Winter flounder cannot exceed the amount of fluke on board
• The vessel operator must sign into this program for a minimum of thirty days and
must have a letter of authorization from the Regional Administrator on board
• While in the program, a vessel cannot fish on a groundfish DAS
• All fishing must take place west of 72-30W
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

197

Alternatives to the Proposed Action
Fishery Program Administration

• Possession and/or landing of other groundfish is prohibited

5.2.7.6

Category B DAS Program

5.2.7.6.1 Option 1 – No Action
There are no changes to the Category B DAS Program.

5.2.7.7

Approval of Additional Gear

5.2.7.7.1 Option 1 - No Action
Under this option, there are no changes to the provisions that allow the Regional Administrator to
authorize additional gear in programs that adopt specific gear requirements. The Regional
Administrator will be able to permanently authorize additional gear in the Category B (regular)
DAS Program and the Eastern U.S. Canada Haddock SAP and can make in-season adjustments
for gear used in the U.S./Canada area. If any additional programs are adopted, they will need to
address whether the Regional Administrator can authorize additional gear.

5.2.8 Periodic Adjustment Process
5.2.8.1

Option 1 – No Action

If No Action is taken, there will be no changes to the periodic adjustment process. The
membership of the Groundfish PDT will include the Chair of the Groundfish Advisory Panel and
one other interested person. The measures adopted in this action will not be able to be adjusted by
a framework action.

5.2.9 Simultaneous Possession of a Limited Access Multispecies and Scallop
Permit
5.2.9.1

Option 1 - No Action

At present, only those limited access scallop permit holders that qualified for a combination
vessel limited access multispecies permit are permitted to hold a limited access scallop permit and
a limited access multispecies permit at the same time. Under the No Action option, this restriction
will continue. Vessels with a limited access scallop permit will not be allowed to obtain a limited
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

198

Alternatives to the Proposed Action
Measures to Meet Mortality Objectives

access multispecies permit, and vessels with a trawl limited access scallop permit that choose to
modify their permit to a dredge limited access scallop permit must surrender any limited access
multispecies permit that is held.
Rationale: This option continues the restriction adopted in Amendment 5 when the limited access
permit system was created for the multispecies FMP.

5.2.10 Catch History
The Council considered not adopting any additional limits on catch history. This No Action
alternative would have meant that catch history continued to accrue to the vessel that landed the
catch.

5.3

Measures to Meet Mortality Objectives

5.3.1 Introduction
5.3.2 Commercial Fishery Measures
In all of these options, measures in existence in FY 2008 continue unless changed by this action.
All of the options, including No Action, include a change in the Category A/Category B DAS
split (effectively a reduction in Category A DAS).

5.3.2.1

No Action

If adopted, the effort controls adopted by Amendment 13 and subsequent frameworks would
continue unchanged. These measures include a change in the Category A and Category B DAS
split (45/55, or an 18 percent reduction in allocated Category A DAS) that is scheduled to occur
in FY 2009 unless certain conditions are met: overfishing is not occurring on any stock and
additional fishing mortality reductions are not needed to rebuild any stock. The measures used to
meet mortality objectives are discussed in broad terms in section 3.5. More specific elements are
described below.
Trip limits: The following trip limits apply when not participating in SAPs, the Category
B (regular) DAS program, or when not altered by regulations for the U.S./Canada area.
GOM cod: 800 lbs./DAS up to 4,000 lbs./trip
GB cod: 1,000 lbs./DAS up to 10,000 lbs./trip
CC/GOM yellowtail flounder: 250 lbs./DAS up to 1,000 lbs./trip
SNE/MA yellowtail flounder: 250 lbs./DAS up to 1,000 lbs./trip
GB yellowtail flounder: 10,000 lbs./trip
GB winter flounder: 5,000 lbs./trip
White hake: 1,000 lbs./DAS up to 10,000 lbs./trip
Atlantic halibut: one fish per trip
Handgear A permit: 300 lbs./cod per trip
Handgear B Permit: 75 lbs./cod per trip
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

199

Alternatives to the Proposed Action
Measures to Meet Mortality Objectives

Gear requirements: See Table 35.
Closed areas: see Figure 6.
Differential DAS counting: DAS are counted at a 2:1 rate for vessels fishing in the areas
shown in Figure 7.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

200

Alternatives to the Proposed Action
Measures to Meet Mortality Objectives

Table 35 – No action alternative general gear requirements
GOM

SNE

Mid-Atl

MINIMUM MESH SIZE RESTRICTIONS FOR GILLNET GEAR
NE Multispecies
Day Gillnet Category*

Roundfish nets
6.5" (16.5 cm) mesh;
50-net allowance
Flatfish nets
6.5" (16.5 cm) mesh;
100-net allowance

NE Multispecies
Trip Gillnet Category*

All nets
6.5" (16.5 cm) mesh;
150-net allowance

Monkfish Vessels**

Roundfish nets
6.5" (16.5 cm) mesh;
75-net allowance
All nets
6.5" (16.5 cm)
mesh;
50-net
allowance

All nets
6.5" (16.5 cm)
mesh;
75-net
allowance

All nets
6.5" (16.5 cm)
mesh;
150-net
allowance

All nets
6.5" (16.5 cm)
mesh;
75-net
allowance

Flatfish nets
6.5" (16.5 cm) mesh;
75-net allowance

All gillnet gear
6.5" (16.5 cm) mesh;
75-net allowance

10" (25.4 cm) mesh/150-net allowance

MINIMUM MESH SIZE RESTRICTIONS FOR TRAWL GEAR
Codend only
mesh size*

6.5" (16.5 cm) diamond or square

Large Mesh Category
entire net

8.5" (21.59 cm) diamond or square

7.0" (17.8 cm)
diamond or
6.5" (16.5 cm)
square

6.5" (16.5 cm) diamond
or square

7.5" (19.0 cm) diamond
or 8.0" (20.3 cm)
square

MAXIUM NUMBER OF HOOKS AND SIZE RESTRICTIONS FOR HOOK-GEAR***
Limited access
multispecies vessels

2,000 hooks

3,600 hooks

2,000 hooks

4,500 hooks (Hookgear vessels only)

No less than 6" (15.2 cm) spacing allowed between
the fairlead rollers
12/0 circle hooks required for longline gear

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

201

N/A

Alternatives to the Proposed Action
Measures to Meet Mortality Objectives

Figure 6 – No action alternative closed areas used as mortality controls

Year Round

May

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

202

March

April

June

October/November

Alternatives to the Proposed Action
Measures to Meet Mortality Objectives

Figure 7 – No action differential DAS area, year round closed areas, and habitat closed areas

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

203

Alternatives to the Proposed Action
Measures to Meet Mortality Objectives

Note: Option numbers are matched to PDT reports describing the options used during the
development of the amendment to facilitate measure discussion.

5.3.2.2

Non-sector Vessels Option 2A – Differential DAS and Trip Limits

This option uses a combination of differential DAS and a trip limits on a few stocks to achieve
mortality objectives. It does not modify the existing year round, rolling, seasonal, or habitat
closed areas. Gear requirements while fishing on a Category A DAS that were implemented by
Amendment 13, as modified by subsequent framework actions, remain in effect.
At the final meeting to review the draft measures, the Council was notified that pollock was
overfished. The initial version of this option considered by the Council did not meet the mortality
objectives needed to rebuild pollock. As a result, the Council considered two variations to Option
2A. These options modified the differential DAS counting areas, further reduced allocated
Category A DAS, and modified trip limits. Table 36 below summarizes these changes for the two
modifications to this option that the Council considered.
Trip limits: The following trip limits would be implemented for fishing on a Category A DAS.
All other trip limits while fishing on a Category A DAS would be eliminated. This measure does
not change the authority of the Regional Administrator to impose trip limits as necessary under
the provisions implementing the U.S./Canada Resource Sharing Understanding. In all cases, only
one landing limit can be landed in any twenty-four hour period. If a vessel fishes in more than
one area, the most restrictive trip limit for a species applies for the entire trip.
Cod (both GOM and GB stocks):
Limited access vessels: 2,000 lbs. per DAS up to a maximum of 12,000 lbs./trip
in the GOM and 20,000 lbs./trip for GB, with the exception of the Eastern U.S./Canada
area where the Regional Administrator will specify the appropriate trip limit at the
beginning of the fishing year (the default trip limit for this area remains 500 lbs./DAS, up
to a maximum of 5,000 lbs./trip). The areas of applicability for the GOM and GB stocks
will remain as currently defined.
Handgear A Permits (HA Permits): Consistent with the automatic adjustment in
landing limits for this category adopted in A13, the landing limit for cod is increased to
750 lbs./trip. The automatic adjustment mechanism is retained.
Handgear B Permits (HB permits): Consistent with the automatic adjustment in
landing limits for this category adopted in A13, the landing limit for GOM cod is
increased to 200 lbs./trip. The automatic adjustment mechanism is retained.
CC/GOM yellowtail flounder and SNE/MA yellowtail flounder: 500 lbs./DAS up to a
maximum of 3,000 lbs./trip.
SNE/MA winter flounder: Landing of this stock is prohibited in any fishery.
Windowpane flounder: Landing of windowpane flounder is prohibited in any fishery.
Atlantic halibut: The trip limit remains one fish per trip.
Effort controls:
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

204

Alternatives to the Proposed Action
Measures to Meet Mortality Objectives

DAS: The default change in the Category A/Category B DAS split that will be
implemented May 1, 2009 is retained. The Category A/Category B split is 45/55.
Differential DAS counting: Differential DAS counting areas are adopted as described
below using thirty-minute squares. Differential DAS will be counted based on the
location of the vessel as determined by VMS. There is no requirement for declaring into
an area (other than requirements for the U.S. /Canada Area. under regulations
implementing the U.S./Canada Resources Sharing Understanding). DAS counting rates
will be based on the first position in the differential DAS counting area and the first
position out of the DAS counting area.
(a) Day gillnet vessel differential DAS counting: For day gillnet vessels that fish
in more than one differential DAS counting area on the same trip, the differential
DAS counting rate that applies is the highest rate for the areas fished. Because of
the day gillnet 15 hour minimum rule, this applies for trips that are either three
hours or less in length, or more than (15/differential DAS rate) in length. This is
a change from the FW 42 practices in the SNE/MA differential DAS counting
area. Examples of the application of this rule follow:
Fishes in one 2:1 area:
0-3 hours: charged at 2 times the time spent on the trip
Over 3-7.5 hours: charged 15 hours
Over 7.5 hours: charged at 2 times the time spent on the trip
Fishes in a 2:1 area and a 2.25:1 area:
0-3 hours: charged 2.25 times the time spent on the trip
Over 3 to 6.67 hours: charged at 15 hours
6.6 hours: charged at 2.25 times the time spent on the trip
(b) Impact on Monkfish Category C and D vessels: Vessels with monkfish
Category C and D permits are generally required to use a groundfish DAS when
using a monkfish DAS. The groundfish DAS will be counted at the appropriate
differential DAS rate as described in this section. As a result, the vessel’s
groundfish DAS may be used before the vessel uses all of its monkfish DAS.
Once the groundfish allocation is used the vessel cannot use its monkfish DAS. If
a vessel’s groundfish DAS allocation is less than its monkfish DAS allocation the
vessel is given monkfish only DAS in the amount equivalent to that vessel’s
annual monkfish allocation minus its annual allocation of NE multispecies. This
provision does not apply to differential DAS counting rates – using the
groundfish DAS at a higher rate than the monkfish DAS does not entitle the
vessel to additional monkfish only DAS. Burning up the groundfish DAS in a
differential DAS area does not, at present, entitle a vessel to use monkfish-only
DAS.
(c) Areas:
Gulf of Maine Inshore: 115-116 (north of Cape Cod), 123-125, 131-133, 138140, 146-147
Rate: 2.25:1
Coordinates: Area bounded by the shore and:
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

205

Alternatives to the Proposed Action
Measures to Meet Mortality Objectives

Shoreline at 69-30W
41-30N 69-30W
41-30N 70-00W
North to Cape Cod at 70W
Gulf of Maine Offshore: 118-122, 126-130, 134-137, 141-145
Rate: 1.25:1
Coordinates: Area bounded by the shoreline at 44 N
44-00N and the US/CA boundary
42-00N and the US/CA boundary
42-00N 69-30W
Shoreline at 69-30W
Georges Bank: 92-96, 108-114
Rate: 2.25:1
Coordinates: 42N and the US/CA boundary
41-00N and the US/CA boundary
41-00N 68-30W
41-30N 68-30W
41-30N 70-00-W
42-00N and the Cape Cod Shoreline
42-00N and the US/CA Boundary
Southern New England/Mid-Atlantic: 80-91, 97-107, 115-116 (south of Cape
Cod)
Rate: 3:1
Coordinates:
41-30N 68-30W
40-30N 68-30W
40-30N and the shoreline
Shoreline at 70-00W
41-30N 70-00W

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

206

Alternatives to the Proposed Action
Measures to Meet Mortality Objectives
Figure 8 – Option 2A proposed differential DAS areas

Table 36 – Modified measures for Alternative 2A
Measure
2A – Mod 1
Cat A DAS Change
Differential DAS Counting

Trip Limits

-30%

2A – Mod 2
-35%

Inshore GOM 2.5:1
Offshore GOM 2:1
GB 1.5:1
SNE 2:1
GOM Cod -2,000 lbs./day/12,000 trip
GB Cod - 2,000 lbs./day/20,000 trip
EGB Cod - 500 lbs./day (E US/CA Area)
CC/GOM GM YT - 500lbs./day/ 3,000 trip
SNE/MA YT - 500 lbs./day/3,000 trip
Pollock -1,000/day/10,000 trip

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

207

Alternatives to the Proposed Action
Measures to Meet Mortality Objectives

5.3.2.3 Non-Sector Vessels Option 4 –DAS Reduction and Restricted Gear
Areas
This option reduces Category A DAS by 40 percent from FW 42 allocations. This results in a
Category A/Category B DAS split of 33/67. Most other current measures remain, including
seasonal and rolling closures and gear requirements. This option does not quite achieve the
rebuilding target for pollock and if selected as the Proposed Action measures may need to be
modified to achieve that target.
The following trip limits would be implemented for fishing on a Category A DAS. All other trip
limits while fishing on a Category A DAS would be eliminated. This measure does not change
the authority of the Regional Administrator to impose trip limits as necessary under the
provisions implementing the U.S./Canada Resource Sharing Understanding. In all cases, only one
landing limit can be landed in any twenty-four hour period. If a vessel fishes in more than one
area, the most restrictive trip limit for a species applies for the entire trip.
GOM cod: 2,000 lbs./DAS; maximum 12,000 lbs/trip
GB cod: 1,000 lbs./DAS, maximum 10,000 lbs./trip; with the exception of the Eastern
U.S./Canada area, where the Regional Administrator will specify the appropriate trip
limit at the beginning of the fishing year (the default trip limit for this area remains 500
lbs./DAS, up to a maximum of 5,000 lbs./trip).
Cod (all):
Handgear A Permits (HA Permits): Consistent with the automatic adjustment in
landing limits for this category adopted in A13, the landing limit for cod is increased to
750 lbs./trip. The automatic adjustment mechanism is retained.
Handgear B Permits (HB permits): Consistent with the automatic adjustment in
landing limits for this category adopted in A13, the landing limit for GOM cod is
increased to 200 lbs./trip. The automatic adjustment mechanism is retained.
CC/GOM yellowtail flounder: 250 lbs./DAS up to a maximum of 1,500 lbs./trip
SNE/MA yellowtail flounder: 250 lbs./DAS up to a maximum of 1,500 lbs./trip
GB yellowtail flounder: 10,000 lbs./trip (unless adjusted consistent with US/CA area
regulations)
SNE/MA winter flounder: Landing of this stock is prohibited in any fishery.
Windowpane Flounder: Landing of this stock is prohibited in any fishery.
Atlantic halibut: One fish per trip
A key feature of this option is the addition of an area in southern New England where only
specific gear can be used while fishing on a groundfish DAS. In the gear areas, gear may be
restricted to those gears that do not catch yellowtail flounder and winter flounder.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

208

Alternatives to the Proposed Action
Measures to Meet Mortality Objectives

Coordinates of proposed area:
Massachusetts shoreline at 71-00W
41-30N 68-30W
40-30N 68-30W
40-30N 73-00W
New York shoreline at 73-00W
New York shoreline at 72-00W
North to Connecticut shoreline at 72-00W
Gears being considered include:
Trawl Gear: Haddock separator trawl, eliminator trawl, five point trawl, raised footrope
trawl, rope trawl
Sink gillnets: No tiedown nets allowed unless using mesh over eight inches
Longline/tub trawls
Handgear
Figure 9– Option 4, restricted gear area

5.3.2.4

SNE/MA Small Mesh Fisheries Gear Requirement

In the area described by the following coordinates and illustrated in Figure 10, all vessels, in any
fishery, fishing with bottom trawl gear that uses a cod end smaller than 6.5 inches, square or
diamond, must use drop chains of at least 12 inches. The drop chains must be a minimum of 3/8
inch diameter bare chain. The spacing of the drop chains must be no less than 55 cm. from one
chain to the next. The drop chain may attach directly to a traveler wire or directly to the footrope.
The area for this requirement is bounded as follows:
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

209

Alternatives to the Proposed Action
Measures to Meet Mortality Objectives

Cape Cod Shoreline at 70W
40-50N 70-00W
40-50N 69-40W
40-40N 69-40W
40-40N 70-30W
40-30N 72-30W
40-10N 73-00W
40-00N 73-15W
Shoreline at 40-00N

Exempted Nets
Nets that are constructed with a mesh of 24 inches or greater, throughout the face of the net, top
and bottom, and that continues beyond the mouth of the net with the same mesh size (24 inches or
greater) for at least five meshes, will not be required to utilize drop chains of any specific length,
if any at all (example: Ruhle trawl or rope net). Figure 11 is an illustration of these net
requirements.
Sweep Length
The sweep shall be no less than two feet longer that the footrope on all nets that are required to
use 12 inch drop chains.
Construction
The sweep and foot rope shall be assembled at the wing end in such a way as to not facilitate
simple adjustment. This connection should be free of chain. Ease of enforcement recognition.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

210

Alternatives to the Proposed Action
Measures to Meet Mortality Objectives

Figure 10 – Proposed area for drop chain requirement

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

211

Alternatives to the Proposed Action
Measures to Meet Mortality Objectives
Figure 11 – Diagram of drop chain requirements for SNE

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

212

Alternatives to the Proposed Action
Measures to Meet Mortality Objectives

5.3.2.5

GOM Haddock Sink Gillnet Pilot Program

5.3.2.5.1 Option 1 – No Action
Under this option a program is not established to target GOM haddock using sink gillnets.

5.3.2.6

Haddock Minimum Size

5.3.2.6.1 Option 1 – No Action
This option, if adopted, leaves the haddock minimum size at 19 inches.
Rationale: This measure is intended to reduce discards and increase landings of the rebuilt
haddock stocks. As proposed it does not apply to recreational vessels but this may change if
recreational vessels can increase their mortality on all haddock stocks.

5.3.3 Recreational Management Measures
Recreational measures will be designed consistent with the allocations adopted in section 5.2.4
and any necessary adjustments in fishing mortality.

5.3.3.1

Provisions for Landing Fillets

Option 1: Recreational (including party/charter) fishermen will be allowed to land fillets with the
skin off. For enforcing bag limit restrictions, the number of fillets will be converted to whole fish
at the place of landing by dividing the fillet number by two. If fish are filleted into single
(butterfly) fillets, each fillet is deemed to be from one whole fish.
Option 2: Recreational (including party/charter) fishermen will be allowed to land fillets. Species
with a recreational allocation of an ACL must have at least two square inches of skin are on the
fillet. The skin must be contiguous and must allow ready identification of the fish species. The
minimum sizes apply to whole fish or to any part of a fish found in possession, e.g., fillets, except
that party and charter vessels possessing valid state permits authorizing filleting at sea may
possess fillets smaller than the size specified if all state requirements are met. For enforcing bag
limit restrictions, the number of fillets will be converted to whole fish at the place of landing by
dividing the fillet number by two. If fish are filleted into single (butterfly) fillets, each fillet is
deemed to be from one whole fish.
Option 3 – No Action: Under the No Action option, recreational fishermen will continue to be
required to land all groundfish fillets with the skin-on.
Rationale: Many recreational fishermen prefer to land fish in fillets, particularly on party/charter
vessels where skinning of fish is provided as a service to the customer. The second option
addresses the concerns of enforcement agents that they will not be able to enforce size limits if
skin is removed because the species will not be identifiable.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

213

Alternatives to the Proposed Action
Measures to Meet Mortality Objectives

5.3.3.2

Removal of the Limit on Hooks

Option 1 – No Action: Under this option, recreational fishermen will be limited to two hooks per
line while fishing for northeast multispecies.
Rationale: Amendment 7 restricted recreational groundfish fishermen to two hooks per line and
one line per angler as an effort reduction measure. This restriction does not exist in other
recreational fisheries. As cod rebuild, some of these fisheries are catching small amounts of cod
when using multiple hooks. These fish must either be discarded or retained illegally. This revision
recognizes the reality that these incidents are likely to increase as cod rebuild and it serves little
purpose to require discarding of cod.

5.3.3.3

Measures to Reduce Mortality

The primary groundfish species caught by recreational fishermen are winter flounder, cod,
haddock, and pollock. Most winter flounder is caught within state waters and the Council cannot
specify management measures for these catches as they are outside Council jurisdiction. The
stocks where recreational catches are a substantial part of the harvest are GOM cod and GOM
haddock. Whether a reduction in fishing mortality from recreational fishing is a function of two
factors: the overall fishing mortality (and if it needs to be reduced to achieve mortality targets)
and the division of the stocks into a commercial and recreational allocation.
If both the commercial and recreational components are catching their share of the allocation,
then each component of the fishery would have to contribute an equivalent mortality reduction if
one is required. If one component is exceeding its share it would need to contribute a larger
reduction.
For the allocation options in section 5.2.5.2 and the mortality changes needed for GOM cod and
GOM haddock, the necessary mortality reductions for the recreational fishery are shown in Table
37 for each of the allocation options being considered. If the selected allocation years are 20012006, additional measures will not be needed for the recreational fishery (technically a 2 percent
reduction in GOM cod mortality is needed but this is considered an undetectable change). If the
selected allocation years are 1996-2006, additional measures will be required. Table 37 also
identifies the option measures being considered for each stock under each allocation option
Table 37 – Impacts of recreational/commercial allocation options on mortality reductions needed for
the recreational and commercial components of the groundfish fishery.

Stock

Overall
Needed
Reduction

GOM cod

-21%

Options Considered

Allocation Years

1996-2006

2001-2006

Rec.

Comm.

Rec.

Comm.

.-27%

-19%

-2%

-28%

Options 1 through 3

Section 4.4.3.3.1
GOM haddock

Allocation Years

Options Considered
Section 4.4.3.3.2

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

-18%

Increase

Options 1 through 3

214

No Action
Increase

Increase
Option 4

Alternatives to the Proposed Action
Measures to Meet Mortality Objectives

5.3.3.3.1 GOM Cod Options
Three options to No Action are being considered are to reduce mortality for GOM cod if the
selected allocation years are 1996-2006.
Option 1: The minimum size for GOM cod is increased to 26 inches. There is no change to the
bag limit or the season.
Option 2: The bag limit for GOM cod is six fish per angler per trip. There is no change to the
minimum size or season.
Option 4 – No Action: Recreational fishing vessels will be subject to a minimum size for GOM
cod of 24 inches (60.96 cm.). Fishermen on private recreational and party/charter vessels are
limited to 10 cod/day per angler. There is a seasonal closure where possession of cod in the GOM
cod regulated mesh area is prohibited from November 1 through March 31.

5.3.3.3.2 GOM Haddock Options
Three options to No Action are proposed to reduce mortality for GOM haddock if the selected
allocation years are 1996-2006.
Option 1: The minimum size for GOM haddock is increased to 21 inches. There is no change to
the bag limit or the season.
Option 2: A bag limit for GOM haddock is implemented as nine fish per angler per trip. There is
no change to the minimum size or season.
Option 3: The minimum size for GOM haddock is reduced to 18 inches and a bag limit of 7 fish
per angler per trip is adopted. There is no change to the season.
One option is proposed if the selected allocation years are 2001-2006 or if no allocation is made.
Option 5 – No Action: the minimum size for GOM haddock remains 19 inches and there is no
bag limit.
Rationale: If the allocation years of 1996 -2006 are selected, recreational harvest of GOM
haddock needs to be reduced to meet mortality objectives. The three options proposed have
approximately the same impacts on mortality. If a different allocation period is selected then
recreational harvest does not need to be reduced.

5.3.4 Atlantic Halibut Minimum Size
5.3.4.1

Option 1 – No Action

If the No Action option is selected the minimum size for Atlantic halibut will remain 36 inches
(91.4 cm.).
Rationale: This increase in the minimum size matches the median length at maturity for female
halibut in the Gulf of Maine. This change should slightly increase opportunities for additional
halibut to spawn prior to capture.
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

215

Alternatives to the Proposed Action
Measures to Meet Mortality Objectives

5.3.5 Retention of Atlantic Wolffish
5.3.5.1

Option 1 – No Action

Under this option, there are no limits on the possession by commercial and recreational vessels of
Atlantic wolffish.

5.3.6

Implementation of Additional Sectors/Modifications to Existing Sectors

5.3.6.1

No Action

Under the No Action alternative, there will be no additional sectors adopted and no changes to the
two existing sectors. All vessels that intend to fish in one of the seventeen additional sectors will
have to fish subject to effort controls that may be modified or adopted by this action.
It is not clear how this alternative would affect existing sectors, since some of the changes in
sector policy that may be adopted might affect these two existing sectors. For example, the
Georges Bank Cod Hook Sector existing provisions allocate only GB cod to this sector, so the No
Action alternative implies this would still be the case. But the sector policy changes may require
that almost all groundfish stocks will be allocated anyway.

5.3.7 Accountability Measures
Requirements for Accountability Measures (AMs) are described in section 4.3.7.

5.3.7.1

Commercial Groundfish Fishing Vessel Accountability Measures

The Council adopted two of the alternatives that were considered, using one alternative in FY
2010 and FY 2011 and then modifying the AM to the second alternative in FY 2012. These were
originally considered individually.

5.3.7.1.1 Common Pool Vessel Accountability Measure Alternative 3 – No
Action
Under this alternative, AMs would not be adopted for common pool vessels. Any adjustments to
management measures necessary to achieve mortality objectives would be implemented through
either a framework adjustment action or an amendment. Such an approach would not comply
with the interpretation of the M-S Act requirements for AMs. The exception would be measures
that allow for in-season adjustments to measures in the U.S./Canada area.

5.3.7.2

Recreational Fishery Accountability Measures

5.3.7.2.1 Option 1
ACLs for the recreational fishery will be established as described in section 5.2.1, consistent with
the commercial/recreational allocation of groundfish stocks described in section 5.2.4. As noted
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

216

Alternatives to the Proposed Action
Measures to Meet Mortality Objectives

in these sections, ACLs are set for the fishing year. The recreational ACL is set only for specific
stocks; it is anticipated that at least GOM haddock and GOM cod will have recreational ACLs
with the adoption of this amendment, but other stocks may be added in the future.
Recreational fishery catches in a fishing year will be monitored using the MRIP data. As soon as
data are available for the entire fishing year (expected to be by June or July of the fishing year
immediately following), recreational catches will be totaled for the fishing year and compared to
the ACL (see below for additional details on this comparison). If catches exceed the ACL, the
Council will determine the measures necessary to prevent exceeding the ACL. Council decisions
will be forwarded to NMFS which will initiate the process for implementation of the measures
using procedures consistent with the APA. Final measures will be published no later than
January. When evaluating recreational “catch”, the components of recreational catch that are used
will be the same as used in the most recent assessment for the stock in question. For example, if
the assessment uses recreational harvest (A+B1), then the ACL will be evaluated based on the
same components.
The recreational AM will be either/or adjustments to season, adjustments to minimum size, or
adjustments to bag limits. Separate AMs will be determined for the private boat and party/charter
components of the recreational fishery – that is, the AMs may be different for these two
components. With respect to the timing of AMs, it is anticipated that the AMs for an overage in
fishing year one will be implemented at the end of fishing year two. Depending on the specific
measures used, the AM may be in effect for an extended period. The applicable period will be
specified when the AM is announced.
When evaluating whether a recreational ACL has been exceeded to determine if the AM needs to
be implemented, the three-year average of recreational catch (calculated consistent with the catch
used on the assessment) will be compared to the three-year average of the ACL. This practice will
be phased in after implementation of this amendment as follows:
•
•
•

217

Alternatives to the Proposed Action
Measures to Meet Mortality Objectives

The phase-in of the use of a three-year average for evaluating recreational ACLs is designed to
implement the ACL/AM program consistent with the M-S Act requirements.

5.3.7.2.2 Option 2
ACLs for the recreational fishery will be established as described in section 5.2.1, consistent with
the commercial/recreational allocation of groundfish stocks described in section 5.2.4. As noted
in these sections, ACLs are set for the fishing year. The recreational ACL is set only for specific
stocks; it is anticipated that at least GOM haddock and GOM cod will have recreational ACLs,
but other stocks may be added in the future.
Recreational fishery catches in a fishing year will be monitored using the MRIP data. As soon as
data are available for the entire fishing year (expected to be by June or July of the fishing year
immediately following), recreational catches will be totaled for the fishing year and compared to
the ACL (see below for additional details on this comparison). If catches exceed the ACL, the
NMFS will determine the measures necessary to prevent exceeding the ACL and publish the
accountability measures (AMs) that will be put into effect using procedures consistent with the
APA. Final measures will be published no later than January. When evaluating recreational
“catch”, the components of recreational catch that are used will be the same as used in the most
recent assessment for the stock in question. For example, if the assessment uses recreational
harvest (A+B1), then the ACL will be evaluated based on the same components.
The recreational AM that is implemented will be selected from the following possible measures.
This list is in priority order; that is, a change in season will be considered for the AM before
either an adjustment to the minimum size or adjustments to bag limits.
•
•
•

Changes in season
Adjustments to minimum size
Adjustments to bag limits

Separate AMs will be determined for the private boat and party/charter components of the
recreational fishery – that is, the AMs may be different for these two components. With respect to
the timing of AMs, it is anticipated that the AMs for an overage in fishing year one will be
implemented at the end of fishing year two. Depending on the specific measures used, the AM
may be in effect for an extended period. The applicable period will be specified when the AM is
announced.
When evaluating whether a recreational ACL has been exceeded to determine if the AM needs to
be implemented, the three-year average of recreational catch (calculated consistent with the catch
used on the assessment) will be compared to the three-year average of the ACL. This practice will
be phased in after implementation of this amendment as follows:
•
•

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

218

Alternatives to the Proposed Action
Measures to Meet Mortality Objectives

•

In subsequent years, the three-year average of recreational harvest will be compared
to the three-year average of the recreational ACL and if necessary AMs will be
implemented in the year immediately following.

Rationale: Because of uncertainty about the number of participants and catches, it is difficult to
design recreational AMs in advance given the tools typically used to manage this fishery. The
impacts of size changes, bag limits, and seasons depend on the current distribution of fishing
effort, sizes in the population, and stock abundance. For this reason, AMs will be adopted only
after evaluating recent catches. This option differs from Option 1 in two respects. First, the AM is
determined by NMFS and is not developed by the Council. Second, the AM will be selected from
the possible measures that are listed in a priority order.
Different AMs may be adopted for the private angler component and the party/charter
components of the fishery. The party/charter component prefers changes in minimum fish size
and bag limits; these measures, if adopted, will likely need to remain in effect for a longer period
than a seasonal closure. There use will also likely increase the uncertainty of achieving
recreational AMs and will need to be considered when setting ACLs.
The phase-in of the use of a three-year average for evaluating recreational ACLs is designed to
implement the ACL/AM program consistent with the M-S Act requirements.
Rationale: Because of uncertainty about the number of participants and catches, it is difficult to
design recreational AMs in advance given the tools typically used to manage this fishery. The
impacts of size changes, bag limits, and seasons depend on the current distribution of fishing
effort, sizes in the population, and stock abundance. For this reason, AMs will be adopted only
after evaluating recent catches. Because of the need to coordinate recreational measures with the
states, the Council determines the specific AMs that will be adopted and will forward that
decision to NMFS.
Different AMs may be adopted for the private angler component and the party/charter
components of the fishery. The party/charter component prefers changes in minimum fish size
and bag limits; these measures, if adopted, will likely need to remain in effect for a longer period
than a seasonal closure. There use will also likely increase the uncertainty of achieving
recreational AMs and will need to be considered when setting ACLs.
The phase-in of the use of a three-year average for evaluating recreational ACLs is designed to
implement the ACL/AM program consistent with the M-S Act requirements.

5.3.7.2.3 Option 4 – No Action
Under this option, AMs would not be adopted for recreational groundfish fishing. Any
adjustments to management measures necessary to meet plan objectives would be adopted
through a framework adjustment or an amendment to the FMP. Such an approach would not be
consistent with the interpretation of M-S Act requirements for AMs.

5.3.7.3

Multispecies Sector Accountability Measures

The sector administration provisions defined in section 5.2.1 incorporate accountability measures
designed to ensure that each sector – and as a result, sectors as a whole - do not contribute to
overfishing.
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

219

Alternatives to the Proposed Action
Other Alternatives Considered

The No Action alternative to this approach would be to not adopt the sector policy changes.

5.4

Other Alternatives Considered

Other alternatives not included in this document were discussed and debated at various times
during its preparation. While ultimately not pursued in this action, this does not prevent the
Council from considering these options in a future action. Indeed, the Council has already stated
its intention to revisit some of the suggestions at a later date (see below).

5.4.1 Research Set-Aside Program
A research set-aside program will be established for the groundfish fishery. The purpose of this
program is to provide a portion of the available catch that can be used for research, including
cooperative research, without requiring participating vessels to use days-at-sea or sector
allocations to account for the mortality that results from the research. It is not intended that this
set-aside will be sufficient to fund cooperative research programs. This program is not intended to
preclude research that is conducted using days-at-sea or sector allocations to account for
mortality.
For each regulated groundfish stock, one percent of the available catch will be set aside for
conducting research. This set-aside will be available to any research associated with the
groundfish fishery: it can be used for research projects related to the commercial and recreational
groundfish fisheries, or other fisheries that have an incidental catch of groundfish. The process
used to award the set-aside is as follows:
(1) NMFS will publish a Request for Proposals (RFP) in the Federal Register, consistent
with procedures and requirements established by the NOAA Grants Office, to solicit
proposals for the upcoming fishing year, based on research priorities identified by the
Council.
(2) NMFS will convene a review panel including the Council’s Research Steering
Committee, as well as technical experts, to review proposals submitted in response to the
RFP.
(i) Each panel member will recommend which research proposals should be
authorized to utilize research quota, based on the selection criteria described in the
RFP.
(ii) The NEFSC Director and the NOAA Grants Office will consider each panel
member’s recommendation, provide final approval of the projects and the Regional
Administrator may, when appropriate, exempt selected vessel(s) from regulations
specified in each of the respective FMPs through written notification to the project
proponent.
(3) The grant awards approved under the RFPs will be for the upcoming fishing year.
Multi-year awards are possible. Proposals to conduct research that would end after the
fishing year, will be eligible for consideration..
(4) Research projects will be conducted in accordance with provisions approved and
provided in an Exempted Fishing Permit (EFP) issued by the Regional Administrator.
(5) If a proposal is disapproved by the NEFSC Director or the NOAA Grants Office, or if
the Regional Administrator determines that the allocated research quota cannot be
utilized by a project, the Regional Administrator shall reallocate the unallocated or
unused amount of research quota to the respective commercial and recreational fisheries

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

220

Alternatives to the Proposed Action
Other Alternatives Considered

by publication of a notice in the Federal Register in compliance with the Administrative
Procedure Act, provided:
(i) The reallocation of the unallocated or unused amount of research quota is in
accord with National Standard 1, and can be available for harvest before the end of
the fishing year for which the research quota is specified; and
(ii) Any reallocation of unallocated or unused research quota shall be consistent with
the proportional division of quota between the commercial and recreational fisheries
in the relevant FMP and allocated to the remaining quota periods for the fishing year
proportionally.
(6) Vessels participating in approved research projects may be exempted from certain
management measures by the Regional Administrator, provided that one of the following
analyses of the impacts associated with the exemptions is provided:
(i) The analysis of the impacts of the requested exemptions is included as part of the
annual quota specification packages submitted by the Council; or
(ii) For proposals that require exemptions that extend beyond the scope of the analysis
provided by the Council, applicants may be required to provide additional analysis of
impacts of the exemptions before issuance of an EFP will be considered.

5.4.2 Effort Control Alternatives
During the course of developing alternatives for effort control measures designed to control
fishing mortality from commercial vessels that do not join sectors, several alternatives were
considered and rejected. One alternative eliminated all trip limits and relied on DAS reductions to
reduce mortality. The Council was concerned that analysis of this alternative over-estimated the
mortality reductions that would be achieved because the model was not correctly predicting
changes in fishing behavior. A second alternative was rejected that would have implemented a
large year-round offshore closure in the Gulf of Maine. This alternative was rejected because of
concerns over inequitable economic impacts.

5.4.3 Alternative Management Systems
As described in section 3.3, the scoping notice for this action solicited suggestions for alternative
management systems to replace the effort control system first adopted in Amendment 5 in 1994.
A number of ideas were suggested. These included an output-based system that proposed using a
points-based currency to control harvest, an area management system, and an individual fishing
quota system. The Council decided not to pursue these alternatives in this action because of
concerns the design of the measures could not be completed in time. The Council intends to
revisit these suggestions after submitting this amendment and may decide to pursue them in a
future action.

5.4.4 Miscellaneous Measures
Some of the measures that were considered but not included I this action include:

•
•
•
•
•
•

remove 20-day spawning block requirement
require use of diamond mesh codend in Closed Area II YTF SAP
provide more flexibility in the length/horsepower restrictions in the das
leasing and transfer programs
remove the tonnage restriction on replacement vessels
consider 6-inch mesh for gillnets
running clock

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

221

Alternatives to the Proposed Action
Other Alternatives Considered

•

trip limit triggers on stocks with trip limits

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

222

Affected Environment
Physical and Biological Environment

6.0 Affected Environment
6.1

Physical and Biological Environment

The Northeast U.S. Shelf Ecosystem (Figure 12) has been described as including the area from
the Gulf of Maine south to Cape Hatteras, extending from the coast seaward to the edge of the
continental shelf, including the slope sea offshore to the Gulf Stream (Sherman et al. 1996). The
continental slope includes the area east of the shelf, out to a depth of 2000 m. Four distinct subregions comprise the NOAA Fisheries Northeast Region: the Gulf of Maine, Georges Bank, the
Mid-Atlantic Bight, and the continental slope. Occasionally another sub-region, Southern New
England, is described; however, we incorporated discussions of any distinctive features of this
area into the sections describing Georges Bank and the Mid-Atlantic Bight.
The Gulf of Maine is an enclosed coastal sea, characterized by relatively cold waters and deep
basins, with a patchwork of various sediment types. Georges Bank is a relatively shallow coastal
plateau that slopes gently from north to south and has steep submarine canyons on its eastern and
southeastern edge. It is characterized by highly productive, well-mixed waters and strong
currents. The Mid-Atlantic Bight is comprised of the sandy, relatively flat, gently sloping
continental shelf from southern New England to Cape Hatteras, NC. The continental slope begins
at the continental shelf break and continues eastward with increasing depth until it becomes the
continental rise. It is fairly homogenous, with exceptions at the shelf break, some of the canyons,
the Hudson Shelf Valley, and in areas of glacially rafted hard bottom.
Pertinent physical and biological characteristics of each of these sub-regions are described in this
section, along with a short description of the physical features of coastal environments. Inshore,
offshore, and continental slope lobster habitats are described in Section 3.2.6. Information on the
affected physical and biological environments included in this amendment was extracted from
Stevenson et al. (2004). The primary source references used by Stevenson et al. are not cited in
this section. They are: Backus 1987; Schmitz et al. 1987; Tucholke 1987; Wiebe et al. 1987;
Cook 1988; Reid and Steimle 1988; Stumpf and Biggs 1988; Abernathy 1989; Townsend 1992;
Mountain 1994; Beardsley et al. 1996; Brooks 1996; Sherman et al. 1996; Dorsey 1998; Kelley
1998; NEFMC 1998; Steimle et al. 1999. References used to describe the biological features of
the affected environment and to describe lobster habitats are cited in the text.

6.1.1 Gulf of Maine
6.1.1.1

Physical Environment

Although not obvious in appearance, the Gulf of Maine (GOM) is actually an enclosed coastal
sea, bounded on the east by Browns Bank, on the north by the Nova Scotian (Scotian) Shelf, on
the west by the New England states, and on the south by Cape Cod and Georges Bank (Figure
13). The GOM was glacially derived, and is characterized by a system of deep basins, moraines
and rocky protrusions with limited access to the open ocean. This geomorphology influences
complex oceanographic processes that result in a rich biological community.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

223

Affected Environment
Physical and Biological Environment

Figure 12 - Northeast U.S Shelf Ecosystem

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

224

Affected Environment
Physical and Biological Environment

Figure 13 - Gulf of Maine

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

225

Affected Environment
Physical and Biological Environment

The GOM is topographically unlike any other part of the continental border along the U.S.
Atlantic coast. The GOM’s geologic features, when coupled with the vertical variation in water
properties, result in a great diversity of habitat types. It contains twenty-one distinct basins
separated by ridges, banks, and swells. The three largest basins are Wilkinson, Georges, and
Jordan (Figure 2). Depths in the basins exceed 250 m, with a maximum depth of 350 m in
Georges Basin, just north of Georges Bank. The Northeast Channel between Georges Bank and
Browns Bank leads into Georges Basin, and is one of the primary avenues for exchange of water
between the GOM and the North Atlantic Ocean.
High points within the Gulf include irregular ridges, such as Cashes Ledge, which peaks at 9 m
below the surface, as well as lower flat topped banks and gentle swells. Some of these rises are
remnants of the sedimentary shelf that was left after most of it was removed by the glaciers.
Others are glacial moraines and a few, like Cashes Ledge, are outcroppings of bedrock. Very fine
sediment particles created and eroded by the glaciers have collected in thick deposits over much
of the GOM, particularly in its deep basins (Figure 14). These mud deposits blanket and obscure
the irregularities of the underlying bedrock, forming topographically smooth terrains. Some
shallower basins are covered with mud as well, including some in coastal waters. In the rises
between the basins, other materials are usually at the surface. Unsorted glacial till covers some
morainal areas, as on Sewell Ridge to the north of Georges Basin and on Truxton Swell to the
south of Jordan Basin. Sand predominates on some high areas and gravel, sometimes with
boulders, predominates on others.
Coastal sediments exhibit a high degree of small-scale variability. Bedrock is the predominant
substrate along the western edge of the GOM north of Cape Cod in a narrow band out to a depth
of about 60 m. Rocky areas become less common with increasing depth, but some rock outcrops
poke through the mud covering the deeper sea floor. Mud is the second most common substrate
on the inner continental shelf. Mud predominates in coastal valleys and basins that often abruptly
border rocky substrates. Many of these basins extend without interruption into deeper water.
Gravel, often mixed with shell, is common adjacent to bedrock outcrops and in fractures in the
rock. Large expanses of gravel are not common, but do occur near reworked glacial moraines
and in areas where the seabed has been scoured by bottom currents. Gravel is most abundant at
depths of 20 - 40 m, except in eastern Maine where a gravel-covered plain exists to depths of at
least 100 m. Bottom currents are stronger in eastern Maine where the mean tidal range exceeds 5
m. Sandy areas are relatively rare along the inner shelf of the western GOM, but are more
common south of Casco Bay, especially offshore of sandy beaches.
An intense seasonal cycle of winter cooling and turnover, springtime freshwater runoff, and
summer warming influences oceanographic and biologic processes in the GOM. The Gulf has a
general counterclockwise nontidal surface current that flows around its coastal margin (Figure
15). It is primarily driven by fresh, cold Scotian Shelf water that enters over the Scotian Shelf
and through the Northeast Channel, and freshwater river runoff, which is particularly important in
the spring. Dense relatively warm and saline slope water entering through the bottom of the
Northeast Channel from the continental slope also influences gyre

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

226

Affected Environment
Physical and Biological Environment
Figure 14 - Northeast region sediments, modified from Poppe et al. (1989a and b)

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

227

Affected Environment
Physical and Biological Environment

Figure 15 - Water mass circulation patterns in the Georges Bank - Gulf of Maine region

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

228

Affected Environment
Physical and Biological Environment

formation. Counterclockwise gyres generally form in Jordan, Wilkinson, and Georges Basins and
the Northeast Channel as well. These surface gyres are more pronounced in spring and summer;
with winter, they weaken and become more influenced by the wind.
Stratification of surface waters during spring and summer seals off a mid-depth layer of water
that preserves winter salinity and temperatures. This cold layer of water is called “Maine
intermediate water” (MIW) and is located between more saline Maine bottom water and the
warmer, stratified Maine surface water. The stratified surface layer is most pronounced in the
deep portions of the western GOM. Tidal mixing of shallow areas prevents thermal stratification
and results in thermal fronts between the stratified areas and cooler mixed areas. Typically,
mixed areas include Georges Bank, the southwest Scotian Shelf, eastern Maine coastal waters,
and the narrow coastal band surrounding the remainder of the Gulf.
The Northeast Channel provides an exit for cold MIW and outgoing surface water while it allows
warmer more saline slope water to move in along the bottom and spill into the deeper basins. The
influx of water occurs in pulses, and appears to be seasonal, with lower flow in late winter and a
maximum in early summer.
GOM circulation and water properties can vary significantly from year to year. Notable episodic
events include shelf-slope interactions such as the entrainment of shelf water by Gulf Stream
rings (see the “Gulf Stream and Associated Features” section, below), and strong winds that can
create currents as high as 1.1 m/s over Georges Bank. Warm core Gulf Stream rings can also
influence upwelling and nutrient exchange on the Scotian shelf, and affect the water masses
entering the GOM. Annual and seasonal inflow variations also affect water circulation.
Internal waves are episodic and can greatly affect the biological properties of certain habitats.
Internal waves can shift water layers vertically, so that habitats normally surrounded by cold
MIW are temporarily bathed in warm, organic rich surface water. On Cashes Ledge, it is thought
that deeper nutrient rich water is driven into the photic zone, providing for increased productivity.
Localized areas of upwelling interaction occur in numerous places throughout the Gulf.

6.1.1.2

Benthic Invertebrates

Based on 303 benthic grab samples collected in the GOM during 1956-1965, Theroux and
Wigley (1998) reported that, in terms of numbers, the most common groups of benthic
invertebrates in the GOM were annelid worms (35%), bivalve mollusks (33%), and amphipod
crustaceans (14%). Biomass was dominated by bivalves (24%), sea cucumbers (22%), sand
dollars (18%), annelids (12%), and sea anemones (9%). Watling (1998) used numerical
classification techniques to separate benthic invertebrate samples into seven bottom assemblages.
These assemblages are identified in Table 38 and their distribution is indicated in Figure 16. This
classification system considers predominant taxa, substrate types, and seawater properties.

6.1.1.3

Demersal Fish

Demersal fish assemblages for the GOM and Georges Bank were part of broad scale
geographic investigations conducted by Gabriel (1992) and Mahon et al. (1998). Both these
studies and a more limited study by Overholtz and Tyler (1985) found assemblages that were
consistent over space and time in this region. In her analysis, Gabriel (1992) found that the most
persistent feature over time in assemblage structure from Nova Scotia to Cape Hatteras was the
boundary separating assemblages between the GOM and Georges Bank, which occurred at
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

229

Affected Environment
Physical and Biological Environment

approximately the 100 m isobath on northern Georges Bank. Overholtz and Tyler (1985)
identified five assemblages for this region. The Gulf of Maine-deep assemblage included a
number of species found in other assemblages, with the exception of American plaice and witch
flounder, which was unique to this assemblage. Gabriel’s approach did not allow species to cooccur in assemblages, and classified these two species as unique to the deepwater Gulf of MaineGeorges Bank assemblage. Results of these two studies are compared in Table 39.
Table 38 - Gulf of Maine benthic assemblages as identified by Watling (1998)

Benthic
Assemblage
1

Benthic Community Description

Comprises all sandy offshore banks, most prominently Jeffreys Ledge, Fippennies Ledge,
and Platts Bank; depth on top of banks about 70 m; substrate usually coarse sand with some
gravel; fauna characteristically sand dwellers with an abundant interstitial component.
2
Comprises the rocky offshore ledges, such as Cashes Ledge, Sigsbee Ridge and Three Dory
Ridge; substrate either rock ridge outcrop or very large boulders, often with a covering of
very fine sediment; fauna predominantly sponges, tunicates, bryozoans, hydroids, and other
hard bottom dwellers; overlying water usually cold Gulf of Maine Intermediate Water.
3
Probably extends all along the coast of the Gulf of Maine in water depths less than 60 m;
bottom waters warm in summer and cold in winter; fauna rich and diverse, primarily
polychaetes and crustaceans, probably consists of several (sub-) assemblages due to
heterogeneity of substrate and water conditions near shore and at mouths of bays.
4
Extends over the soft bottom at depths of 60 - 140 m, well within the cold Gulf of Maine
Intermediate Water; bottom sediments primarily fine muds; fauna dominated by polychaetes,
shrimp, and cerianthid anemones.
5
A mixed assemblage comprising elements from the cold water fauna as well as a few deeper
water species with broader temperature tolerances; overlying water often a mixture of
Intermediate Water and Bottom Water, but generally colder than 7°C most of the year; fauna
sparse, diversity low, dominated by a few polychaetes, with brittle stars, sea pens, shrimp,
and cerianthids also present.
6
Comprises the fauna of the deep basins; bottom sediments generally very fine muds, but may
have a gravel component in the offshore morainal regions; overlying water usually 7 - 8°C,
with little variation; fauna shows some bathyal affinities but densities are not high,
dominated by brittle stars and sea pens, and sporadically by a tube-making amphipod.
7
The true upper slope fauna that extends into the Northeast Channel; water temperatures are
always above 8°C and salinities are at least 35 ppt; sediments may be either fine muds or a
mixture of mud and gravel.
Geographical distribution of assemblages is shown in Figure 5.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

230

Affected Environment
Physical and Biological Environment

Figure 16 - Distribution of the seven major benthic assemblages in the Gulf of Maine.
Distribution determined from both soft bottom quantitative sampling and qualitative hard bottom
sampling. The assemblages are characterized as follows: 1. Sandy offshore banks; 2. Rocky offshore
ledges; 3. Shallow (< 50 m) temperate bottoms with mixed substrate; 4. Boreal muddy bottom,
overlain by Maine Intermediate Water, 50 - 160 m (approximate); 5. Cold deep water, species with
broad tolerances, muddy bottom; 6. Deep basin warm water, muddy bottom; 7. Upper slope water,
mixed sediment. Source: Watling (1998).

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

231

Affected Environment
Physical and Biological Environment
Table 39 - Comparison of demersal fish assemblages of Georges Bank and the Gulf of Maine

Overholtz and Tyler (1985)
Assemblage
Species
Slope
and offshore hake
Canyon
blackbelly rosefish
Gulf stream flounder

Intermediate

Shallow

Gabriel (1992)
Species
offshore hake
blackbelly rosefish
Gulf stream flounder

Assemblage
Deepwater

fawn cusk-eel, longfin
fourspot flounder, goosefish,
silver hake, white hake, red hake hake, armored sea
robin
Combination of Deepwater Gulf
silver hake
silver hake
of Maine/Georges Bank and
red hake
red hake
Gulf of Maine-Georges Bank
goosefish
goosefish
Transition
northern shortfin squid,
Atlantic cod, haddock, ocean
pout, yellowtail flounder, winter spiny dogfish, cusk
skate, little skate, sea raven,
longhorn sculpin
Gulf of Maine-Georges Bank
Atlantic cod
Atlantic cod
Transition Zone
haddock
haddock
(see below also)
pollock
pollock
silver hake
white hake
red hake
goosefish
ocean pout

yellowtail flounder
windowpane
winter flounder
winter skate
little skate
longhorn sculpin
summer flounder
sea raven, sand lance
Gulf of Maine- white hake
Deep
American plaice
witch flounder
thorny skate

yellowtail flounder
windowpane
winter flounder
winter skate
little skate
longhorn sculpin

Shallow Water Georges BankSouthern New England

white hake
American plaice
witch flounder
thorny skate

Deepwater Gulf
Georges Bank

silver hake, Atlantic cod,
haddock, cusk, Atlantic wolffish
Northeast Peak Atlantic cod
haddock
pollock

redfish
Atlantic cod
haddock
pollock

ocean pout, winter flounder,
white hake, thorny skate,
longhorn sculpin
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

232

Maine-

Gulf of Maine-Georges Bank
Transition Zone
(see above also)

Affected Environment
Physical and Biological Environment

6.1.2 Georges Bank
6.1.2.1

Physical Environment

Georges Bank is a shallow (3 - 150 m depth), elongate (161 km wide by 322 km long) extension
of the continental shelf that was formed by the Wisconsinian glacial episode. It is characterized
by a steep slope on its northern edge and a broad, flat, gently sloping southern flank. The Great
South Channel lies to the west. Natural processes continue to erode and rework the sediments on
Georges Bank. It is anticipated that erosion and reworking of sediments will reduce the amount
of sand available to the sand sheets, and cause an overall coarsening of the bottom sediments
(Valentine et al. 1993).
Glacial retreat during the late Pleistocene deposited the bottom sediments currently observed on
the eastern section of Georges Bank, and the sediments have been continuously reworked and
redistributed by the action of rising sea level, and by tidal, storm and other currents. The strong,
erosive currents affect the character of the biological community. Bottom topography on eastern
Georges Bank is characterized by linear ridges in the western shoal areas; a relatively smooth,
gently dipping sea floor on the deeper, easternmost part; a highly energetic peak in the north with
sand ridges up to 30 m high and extensive gravel pavement; and steeper and smoother topography
incised by submarine canyons on the southeastern margin (see the “Continental Slope” section,
below, for more on canyons). The interaction of several environmental factors, including
availability and type of sediment, current speed and direction, and bottom topography, has formed
seven sedimentary provinces on eastern Georges Bank (Valentine and Lough 1991), which are
described in Table 40 and depicted in Figure 17. The gravel-sand mixture is usually a transition
zone between coarse gravel and finer sediments.
The central region of the Bank is shallow, and the bottom is characterized by shoals and troughs,
with sand dunes superimposed upon them. The two most prominent elevations on the ridge and
trough area are Cultivator and Georges Shoals. This shoal and trough area is a region of strong
currents, with average flood and ebb tidal currents greater than 4 km/h, and as high as 7 km/h.
The dunes migrate at variable rates, and the ridges may also move. In an area that lies between
the central part and Northeast Peak, Almeida et al. (2000) identified high-energy areas as between
35 - 65 m deep, where sand is transported on a daily basis by tidal currents, and a low-energy area
at depths > 65 m that is affected only by storm currents.
The area west of the Great South Channel, known as Nantucket Shoals (Figure 13), is similar in
nature to the central region of the Bank. Currents in these areas are strongest where water depth
is shallower than 50 m. This type of travelling dune and swale morphology is also found in the
Mid-Atlantic Bight, and further described in that section of the document. The Great South
Channel separates the main part of Georges Bank from Nantucket Shoals. Sediments in this
region include gravel pavement and mounds, some scattered boulders, sand with storm generated
ripples, and scattered shell and mussel beds. Tidal and storm currents range from moderate to
strong, depending upon location and storm activity (Valentine, pers. comm.).

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

233

Affected Environment
Physical and Biological Environment

Table 40 - Sedimentary provinces and associated benthic landscapes of Georges Bank

Sedimentary Province Depth (m)

Description

Dominated by gravel with portions of sand, common
boulder areas, and tightly packed pebbles.
Northern Edge /
epifauna
(bryozoa,
hydrozoa,
40 - 200 Representative
Northeast Peak (1)
anemones, and calcareous worm tubes) are abundant in
areas of boulders. Strong tidal and storm currents.
Variable sediment type (gravel, gravel-sand, and sand)
Northern Slope and
scattered bedforms. This is a transition zone between
200 - 240
Northeast Channel (2)
the northern edge and southern slope. Strong tidal and
storm currents.
Highly variable sediment type (ranging from gravel to
sand) with rippled sand, large bedforms, and patchy
gravel lag deposits. Minimal epifauna on gravel due to
North /Central Shelf (3) 60 - 120
sand movement. Representative epifauna in sand areas
includes amphipods, sand dollars, and burrowing
anemones.
Dominated by sand (fine and medium grain) with large
sand ridges, dunes, waves, and ripples.
Small
Central and
bedforms in southern part. Minimal epifauna on gravel
Southwestern Shelf 10 - 80
due to sand movement. Representative epifauna in
shoal ridges (4)
sand areas includes amphipods, sand dollars, and
burrowing anemones.
Gravel (including gravel lag) and gravel-sand between
large sand ridges. Patchy large bedforms. Strong
currents. (Few samples – submersible observation
Central and
noted presence of gravel lag, rippled gravel-sand, and
Southwestern Shelf 40 - 60
large bedforms.) Minimal epifauna on gravel due to
shoal troughs (5)
sand movement. Representative epifauna in sand areas
includes amphipods, sand dollars, and burrowing
anemones.
Rippled gravel-sand (medium and fine grained sand)
with patchy large bedforms and gravel lag. Weaker
Southeastern Shelf (6)
80 - 200 currents; ripples are formed by intermittent storm
currents. Representative epifauna includes sponges
attached to shell fragments and amphipods.
Dominated by silt and clay with portions of sand
Southeastern Slope (7) 400 - 2000 (medium and fine) with rippled sand on shallow slope
and smooth silt-sand deeper.

Benthic
Assemblage
Northeast
Peak

Northeast
Peak

Central
Georges

Southern
Georges

Sediment provinces as defined by Valentine et al. (1993) and Valentine and Lough (1991), with
additional comments by Valentine (pers. comm.) and benthic assemblages assigned by Theroux
and Grosslein (1987). See text for further discussion on benthic assemblages.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

234

none

Affected Environment
Physical and Biological Environment

Figure 17 - Sedimentary provinces of eastern Georges Bank. Based on criteria of sea floor
morphology, texture, sediment movement and bedforms, and mean tidal bottom current speed
(cm/s). Relict moraines (bouldery seafloor) are enclosed by dashed lines. See Table 3 for
descriptions of provinces. Source: Valentine and Lough (1991).

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

235

Affected Environment
Physical and Biological Environment

Oceanographic frontal systems separate water masses of the GOM and Georges Bank from
oceanic waters south of the Bank. These water masses differ in temperature, salinity, nutrient
concentration, and planktonic communities, which influence productivity and may influence fish
abundance and distribution. Currents on Georges Bank include a weak, persistent clockwise gyre
around the Bank, a strong semidiurnal tidal flow predominantly northwest and southeast, and
very strong, intermittent storm induced currents, which all can occur simultaneously (Figure 15).
Tidal currents over the shallow top of Georges Bank can be very strong, and keep the waters over
the Bank well mixed vertically. This results in a tidal front that separates the cool waters of the
well mixed shallows of the central Bank from the warmer, seasonally stratified shelf waters on
the seaward and shoreward sides of the Bank. The clockwise gyre is instrumental in distribution
of plankton, including fish eggs and larvae.

6.1.2.2

Invertebrates

Amphipod crustaceans (49%) and annelid worms (28%) numerically dominated the contents of
211 samples collected on Georges Bank during 1956-1965 (Theroux and Wigley 1998). Biomass
was dominated by sand dollars (50%) and bivalves (33%). Theroux and Grosslein (1987) utilized
the same database to identify four macrobenthic invertebrate assemblages. They noted that the
boundaries between assemblages were not well defined because there is considerable intergrading
between adjacent assemblages. Their assemblages are associated with those identified by
Valentine and Lough (1991) in Table 40.
The Western Basin assemblage is found in the upper Great South Channel region at the
northwestern corner of the Bank, in comparatively deepwater (150 - 200 m) with relatively slow
currents and fine bottom sediments of silt, clay and muddy sand. Fauna are comprised mainly of
small burrowing detritivores and deposit feeders, and carnivorous scavengers. Valentine and
Lough (1991) did not identify a comparable assemblage; however, this assemblage is
geographically located adjacent to Assemblage 5 as described by Watling (1998) (Table 38,
Figure 16).
The Northeast Peak assemblage is found along the Northern Edge and Northeast Peak, which
varies in depth and current strength and includes coarse sediments, consisting mainly of gravel
and coarse sand with interspersed boulders, cobbles, and pebbles. Fauna tend to be sessile
(coelenterates, brachiopods, barnacles, and tubiferous annelids) or free-living (brittle stars,
crustaceans, and polychaetes), with a characteristic absence of burrowing forms.
The Central Georges Bank assemblage occupies the greatest area, including the central and
northern portions of the Bank in depths less than 100 m. Medium grained shifting sands
predominate this dynamic area of strong currents. Organisms tend to be small to moderately
large with burrowing or motile habits.
The Southern Georges Bank assemblage is found on the southern and southwestern flanks at
depths from 80 - 200 m, where fine grained sands and moderate currents predominate. Many
southern species exist here at the northern limits of their range.

6.1.2.3

Demersal Fish

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

236

Affected Environment
Physical and Biological Environment

Along with high levels of primary productivity, Georges Bank has been historically characterized
by high levels of fish production. Several studies have attempted to identify demersal fish
assemblages over large spatial scales. Overholtz and Tyler (1985) found five depth related
groundfish assemblages for Georges Bank and the GOM that were persistent temporally and
spatially. Depth and salinity were identified as major physical influences explaining assemblage
structure. Gabriel (1992) identified six assemblages, which are compared with the results of
Overholtz and Tyler (1985) in Table 2. Mahon et al. (1998) found similar results.

6.1.3 Mid-Atlantic Bight
6.1.3.1

Physical Environment

The Mid-Atlantic Bight includes the shelf and slope waters from Georges Bank south to Cape
Hatteras, and east to the Gulf Stream (Figure 12). Like the rest of the continental shelf, the
topography of the Mid-Atlantic Bight was shaped largely by sea level fluctuations caused by past
ice ages. The shelf’s basic morphology and sediments derive from the retreat of the last ice sheet,
and the subsequent rise in sea level. Since that time, currents and waves have modified this basic
structure.
Shelf and slope waters of the Mid-Atlantic Bight have a slow southwestward flow that is
occasionally interrupted by warm core rings or meanders from the Gulf Stream. On average,
shelf water moves parallel to bathymetry isobars at speeds of 5 - 10 cm/s at the surface and 2
cm/s or less at the bottom. Storm events can cause much more energetic variations in flow. Tidal
currents on the inner shelf have a higher flow rate of 20 cm/s that increases to 100 cm/s near
inlets.
Slope water tends to be warmer than shelf water because of its proximity to the Gulf Stream, and
tends to be more saline. The abrupt gradient where these two water masses meet is called the
shelf-slope front. This front is usually located at the edge of the shelf and touches bottom at
about 75 - 100 m depth of water, and then slopes up to the east toward the surface. It reaches
surface waters approximately 25 - 55 km further offshore. The position of the front is highly
variable, and can be influenced by many physical factors. Vertical structure of temperature and
salinity within the front can develop complex patterns because of the interleaving of shelf and
slope waters; e.g., cold shelf waters can protrude offshore, or warmer slope water can intrude up
onto the shelf.
The seasonal effects of warming and cooling increase in shallower, nearshore waters.
Stratification of the water column occurs over the shelf and the top layer of slope water during the
spring-summer and is usually established by early June. Fall mixing results in homogenous shelf
and upper slope waters by October in most years. A permanent thermocline exists in slope waters
from 200 - 600 m deep. Temperatures decrease at the rate of about 0.02ºC per meter and remain
relatively constant except for occasional incursions of Gulf stream eddies or meanders. Below
600 m, temperature declines, and usually averages about 2.2ºC at 4000 m. A warm, mixed layer
approximately 40 m thick resides above the permanent thermocline.
The “cold pool” is an annual phenomenon particularly important to the Mid-Atlantic Bight. It
stretches from the Gulf of Maine along the outer edge of Georges Bank and then southwest to
Cape Hatteras. It becomes identifiable with the onset of thermal stratification in the spring and
lasts into early fall until normal seasonal mixing occurs. It usually exists along the bottom
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

237

Affected Environment
Physical and Biological Environment

between the 40 and 100 m isobaths and extends up into the water column for about 35 m, to the
bottom of the seasonal thermocline. The cold pool usually represents about 30% of the volume of
shelf water. Minimum temperatures for the cold pool occur in early spring and summer, and
range from 1.1 - 4.7ºC.
The shelf slopes gently from shore out to between 100 and 200 km offshore where it transforms
to the slope (100 - 200 m water depth) at the shelf break. In both the Mid-Atlantic and on
Georges Bank, numerous canyons incise the slope, and some cut up onto the shelf itself (see the
“Continental Slope” section, below). The primary morphological features of the shelf include
shelf valleys and channels, shoal massifs, scarps, and sand ridges and swales (Figure 18 and
Figure 19).
Most of these structures are relic except for some sand ridges and smaller sand-formed features.
Shelf valleys and slope canyons were formed by rivers of glacier outwash that deposited
sediments on the outer shelf edge as they entered the ocean. Most valleys cut about 10 m into the
shelf, with the exception of the Hudson Shelf Valley that is about 35 m deep. The valleys were
partially filled as the glacier melted and retreated across the shelf. The glacier also left behind a
lengthy scarp near the shelf break from Chesapeake Bay north to the eastern end of Long Island
(Figure 18 and Figure 19). Shoal retreat massifs were produced by extensive deposition at a cape
or estuary mouth. Massifs were also formed as estuaries retreated across the shelf.
The sediment type covering most of the shelf in the Mid-Atlantic Bight is sand, with some
relatively small, localized areas of sand-shell and sand-gravel. On the slope, silty sand, silt, and
clay predominate.
Some sand ridges (Figure 18) are more modern in origin than the shelf’s glaciated morphology.
Their formation is not well understood; however, they appear to develop from the sediments that
erode from the shore face. They maintain their shape, so it is assumed that they are in
equilibrium with modern current and storm regimes. They are usually grouped, with heights of
about 10 m, lengths of 10 - 50 km and spacing of 2 km. Ridges are usually oriented at a slight
angle towards shore, running in length from northeast to southwest. The seaward face usually has
the steepest slope. Sand ridges are often covered with smaller similar forms such as sand waves,
megaripples, and ripples. Swales occur between sand ridges. Since ridges are higher than the
adjacent swales, they are exposed to more energy from water currents, and experience more
sediment mobility than swales. Ridges tend to contain less fine sand, silt and clay while
relatively sheltered swales contain more of the finer particles. Swales have greater benthic
macrofaunal density, species richness and biomass, due in part to the increased abundance of
detrital food and the physically less rigorous conditions.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

238

Affected Environment
Physical and Biological Environment

Figure 18 - Mid-Atlantic Bight submarine morphology. Source: Stumpf and Biggs (1988).

Figure 19 - Major features of the mid-Atlantic and southern New England continental shelf. Source:
Stumpf and Biggs (1988).

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

239

Affected Environment
Physical and Biological Environment

Sand waves are usually found in patches of 5 - 10 with heights of about 2 m, lengths of 50 - 100
m and 1 - 2 km between patches. Sand waves are primarily found on the inner shelf, and often
observed on sides of sand ridges. They may remain intact over several seasons. Megaripples
occur on sand waves or separately on the inner or central shelf. During the winter storm season,
they may cover as much as 15% of the inner shelf. They tend to form in large patches and
usually have lengths of 3 - 5 m with heights of 0.5 - 1 m. Megaripples tend to survive for less
than a season. They can form during a storm and reshape the upper 50 - 100 cm of the sediments
within a few hours. Ripples are also found everywhere on the shelf, and appear or disappear
within hours or days, depending upon storms and currents. Ripples usually have lengths of about
1 - 150 cm and heights of a few centimeters.
Sediments are uniformly distributed over the shelf in this region (see Figure 14). A sheet of sand
and gravel varying in thickness from 0 - 10 m covers most of the shelf. The mean bottom flow
from the constant southwesterly current is not fast enough to move sand, so sediment transport
must be episodic. Net sediment movement is in the same southwesterly direction as the current.
The sands are mostly medium to coarse grains, with finer sand in the Hudson Shelf Valley and on
the outer shelf. Mud is rare over most of the shelf, but is common in the Hudson Shelf Valley.
Occasionally relic estuarine mud deposits are re-exposed in the swales between sand ridges. Fine
sediment content increases rapidly at the shelf break, which is sometimes called the “mud line,”
and sediments are 70 - 100% fines on the slope.
The northern portion of the Mid-Atlantic Bight is sometimes referred to as southern New
England. Most of this area was discussed under Georges Bank; however, one other formation of
this region deserves note. The mud patch is located just southwest of Nantucket Shoals and
southeast of Long Island and Rhode Island (Figure 14). Tidal currents in this area slow
significantly, which allows silts and clays to settle out. The mud is mixed with sand, and is
occasionally re-suspended by large storms. This habitat is an anomaly of the outer continental
shelf.
Artificial reefs are another significant Mid-Atlantic habitat, formed much more recently on the
geologic time scale than other regional habitat types. These localized areas of hard structure have
been formed by shipwrecks, lost cargoes, disposed solid materials, shoreline jetties and groins,
submerged pipelines, cables, and other materials (Steimle and Zetlin 2000). While some of
materials have been deposited specifically for use as fish habitat, most have an alternative
primary purpose; however, they have all become an integral part of the coastal and shelf
ecosystem. It is expected that the increase in these materials has had an impact on living marine
resources and fisheries, but these effects are not well known. In general, reefs are important for
attachment sites, shelter, and food for many species, and fish predators such as tunas may be
attracted by prey aggregations, or may be behaviorally attracted to the reef structure. The
overview by Steimle and Zetlin (2000) used NOAA hydrographic surveys to plot rocks, wrecks,
obstructions, and artificial reefs, which together were considered a fairly complete list of
nonbiogenic reef habitat in the Mid-Atlantic estuarine and coastal areas (Figure 20).

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

240

Affected Environment
Physical and Biological Environment

Figure 20 - Summary of all reef habitats (except biogenic, such as mussel or oyster beds) in the MidAtlantic Bight.
Source: Steimle and Zetlin (2000).

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

241

Affected Environment
Physical and Biological Environment

6.1.3.2

Invertebrates

Wigley and Theroux (1981) reported on the faunal composition of 563 bottom grab samples
collected in the Mid-Atlantic Bight during 1956-1965. Amphipod crustaceans and bivalve
mollusks accounted for most of the individuals (41% and 22%, respectively), whereas mollusks
dominated the biomass (70%). Three broad faunal zones related to water depth and sediment
type were identified by Pratt (1973). The “sand fauna” zone was defined for sandy sediments
(1% or less silt) that are at least occasionally disturbed by waves, from shore out to 50 m (Figure
10). The “silty sand fauna” zone occurred immediately offshore from the sand fauna zone, in
stable sands containing a small amount of silt and organic material. Silts and clays become
predominant at the shelf break and line the Hudson Shelf Valley, and support the “silt-clay
fauna.”
Building on Pratt’s work, the Mid-Atlantic shelf was further divided by Boesch (1979) into seven
bathymetric/morphologic subdivisions based on faunal assemblages (Table 41). Sediments in the
region studied (Hudson Shelf Valley south to Chesapeake Bay) were dominated by sand with
little finer materials. Ridges and swales are important morphological features in this area.
Sediments are coarser on the ridges, and the swales have greater benthic macrofaunal density,
species richness, and biomass. Faunal species composition differed between these features, and
Boesch (1979) incorporated this variation in his subdivisions. Much overlap of species
distributions was found between depth zones, so the faunal assemblages represented more of a
continuum than distinct zones.

6.1.3.3

Demersal Fish

Demersal fish assemblages were described at a broad geographic scale for the continental shelf
and slope from Cape Chidley, Labrador to Cape Hatteras, North Carolina (Mahon et al. 1998) and
from Nova Scotia to Cape Hatteras (Gabriel 1992). Factors influencing species distribution
included latitude and depth. Results of these studies were similar to an earlier study confined to
the Mid-Atlantic Bight continental shelf (Colvocoresses and Musick 1984). In this study, there
were clear variations in species abundances, yet they demonstrated consistent patterns of
community composition and distribution among demersal fishes of the Mid-Atlantic shelf. This
is especially true for five strongly recurring species associations that varied slightly by season
(Table 41). The boundaries between fish assemblages generally followed isotherms and isobaths.
The assemblages were largely similar between the spring and fall collections, with the most
notable change being a northward and shoreward shift in the temperate group in the spring.
Steimle and Zetlin (2000) described representative epibenthic/epibiotic, motile epibenthic, and
fish species associated with sparsely scattered reef habitats that consist mainly of manmade
structures (Table 42).

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

242

Affected Environment
Physical and Biological Environment

Figure 21 - Schematic representation of major macrofaunal zones on the mid-Atlantic shelf.
Approximate location of ridge fields indicated. Source: Reid and Steimle (1988).

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

243

Affected Environment
Physical and Biological Environment

Table 41 - Mid-Atlantic habitat types.

Habitat Type
[after Boesch
(1979)]
Inner shelf

Description
Characterization
Depth
[Pratt (1973) faunal
(m)
zone]
characterized by coarse
sands with finer sands off
0 - 30
MD and VA (sand zone)

Central shelf

30 - 50

(sand zone)

Central and inner
shelf swales

0 - 50

occurs in swales between
sand ridges (sand zone)

Outer shelf

50
100

Outer shelf swales

50
100

Shelf break
Continental slope

100 200
> 200

(silty sand zone)

Characteristic Benthic Macrofauna
Polychaetes: Polygordius, Goniadella,
Spiophanes
Polychaetes: Spiophanes, Goniadella
Amphipod: Pseudunciola
Polychaetes:
Spiophanes, Lumbrineris,
Polygordius
Amphipods:
Ampelisca
vadorum,
Erichthonius Polychaetes: Spiophanes

occurs in swales between
sand ridges (silty sand
zone)

Amphipods:
Erichthonius

(silt-clay zone)

not given

(none)

not given

Ampelisca agassizi, Unciola,

As described by Pratt (1973) and Boesch (1979) with characteristic macrofauna as identified in
Boesch (1979).

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

244

Affected Environment
Physical and Biological Environment
Table 42 - Major recurrent demersal finfish assemblages of the Mid-Atlantic Bight during spring
and fall.
Species Assemblage

Season
Spring

Fall

Boreal

Atlantic cod
little skate
sea raven
goosefish
winter flounder
longhorn sculpin
ocean pout
silver hake
red hake
white hake
spiny dogfish
white hake
silver hake
red hake
goosefish
longhorn sculpin
winter flounder
yellowtail
flounder
witch flounder
little skate
spiny dogfish

Warm
temperate
black sea bass
summer
flounder
butterfish
scup
spotted hake
northern
searobin

black sea bass
summer
flounder
butterfish
scup
spotted hake
northern
searobin
smooth dogfish

Inner shelf

Outer shelf

Slope

windowpane

fourspot flounder

shortnose
greeneye
offshore hake
blackbelly
rosefish
white hake

windowpane

fourspot flounder
fawn cusk eel
gulf stream
flounder

shortnose
greeneye offshore
hake
blackbelly
rosefish
white hake
witch flounder

As determined by Colvocoresses and Musick (1984).

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

245

Affected Environment
Physical and Biological Environment

Table 43 - Mid-Atlantic reef types, location, and representative flora and fauna

Location (Type)
Estuarine (oyster reefs,
blue mussel beds, other
hard surfaces, semi-hard
clay and Spartina peat
reefs)

Coastal (exposed
rock/soft marl, harder
rock, wrecks and
artificial reefs, kelp,
other materials)

Shelf (rocks and
boulders, wrecks and
artificial reefs, other
solid substrates)

Representative Flora and Fauna
Motile Epibenthic
Epibenthic/Epibiotic
Invertebrates
Oyster, barnacles, ribbed Xanthid crabs, blue
crab, rock crabs, spider
mussel, blue mussel,
crab, juvenile American
algae, sponges, tube
lobsters, sea stars
worms, anemones,
hydroids, bryozoans,
slipper shell, jingle
shell, northern stone
coral, sea whips,
tunicates, caprellid
amphipods, wood borers

Boring mollusks
(piddocks), red algae,
sponges, anemones,
hydroids, northern stone
coral, soft coral, sea
whips, barnacles, blue
mussel, horse mussel,
bryozoans, skeleton and
tubiculous amphipods,
polychaetes, jingle shell,
sea stars
Boring mollusks
(piddocks) red algae,
sponges, anemones,
hydroids, stone coral,
soft coral, sea whips,
barnacles, blue mussels,
horse mussels,
bryozoans, amphipods,
polychaetes

Outer shelf (reefs and
clay burrows including
“pueblo village
community”)
As described in Steimle and Zetlin (2000).

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

246

American lobster, Jonah
crab, rock crabs, spider
crab, sea stars, urchins,
squid egg clusters

American lobster, Jonah
crabs, rock crabs, spider
crabs, sea stars, urchins,
squid egg clusters (with
addition of some
deepwater taxa at shelf
edge)

Fish
Gobies, spot, striped
bass, black sea bass,
white perch, toadfish,
scup, drum, croaker,
spot, sheepshead porgy,
pinfish, juvenile and
adult tautog, pinfish,
northern puffer, cunner,
sculpins, juvenile and
adult Atlantic cod, rock
gunnel, conger eel,
American eel, red hake,
ocean pout, white hake,
juvenile pollock
Black sea bass, pinfish,
scup, cunner, red hake,
gray triggerfish, black
grouper, smooth
dogfish, summer
flounder, scad, bluefish,
amberjack, Atlantic cod,
tautog, ocean pout,
conger eel, sea raven,
rock gunnel, radiated
shanny
Black sea bass, scup,
tautog, cunner, gag,
sheepshead, porgy,
round herring, sardines,
amberjack, spadefish,
gray triggerfish,
mackerels, small tunas,
spottail pinfish, tautog,
Atlantic cod, ocean
pout, red hake, conger
eel, cunner, sea raven,
rock gunnel, pollock,
white hake
Tilefish, white hake,
conger eel

Affected Environment
Physical and Biological Environment

6.1.4 Continental Slope
6.1.4.1

Physical Environment

The continental slope extends from the continental shelf break, at depths between 60 - 200 m,
eastward to a depth of 2000 m. The width of the slope varies from 10 - 50 km, with an average
gradient of 3 - 6°; however, local gradients can be nearly vertical. The base of the slope is
defined by a marked decrease in seafloor gradient where the continental rise begins.
The morphology of the present continental slope appears largely to be a result of sedimentary
processes that occurred during the Pleistocene, including, 1) slope upbuilding and progradation
by deltaic sedimentation principally during sea-level low stands; 2) canyon cutting by sediment
mass movements during and following sea-level low stands; and 3) sediment slumping.
The slope is cut by at least 70 large canyons between Georges Bank and Cape Hatteras (Figure 22
and Figure 23) and numerous smaller canyons and gullies, many of which may feed into the
larger canyon systems. The New England Seamount Chain including Bear, Mytilus, and Balanus
Seamounts occurs on the slope southwest of Georges Bank. A smaller chain (Caryn, Knauss,
etc.) occurs in the vicinity in deeper water.
A “mud line” occurs on the slope at a depth of 250 - 300 m, below which fine silt and clay-size
particles predominate (Figure 14). Localized coarse sediments and rock outcrops are found in
and near canyon walls, and occasional boulders occur on the slope because of glacial rafting.
Sand pockets may also be formed because of downslope movements.
Gravity induced downslope movement is the dominant sedimentary process on the slope, and
includes slumps, slides, debris flows, and turbidity currents, in order from thick cohesive
movement to relatively nonviscous flow. Slumps may involve localized, short, down-slope
movements by blocks of sediment. However, turbidity currents can transport sediments
thousands of kilometers.
Submarine canyons are not spaced evenly along the slope, but tend to decrease in areas of
increasing slope gradient. Canyons are typically “v” shaped in cross section and often have steep
walls and outcroppings of bedrock and clay. The canyons are continuous from the canyon heads
to the base of the continental slope. Some canyons end at the base of the slope, but others
continue as channels onto the continental rise. Larger and more deeply incised canyons are
generally significantly older than smaller ones, and there is evidence that some older canyons
have experienced several episodes of filling and re-excavation. Many, if not all, submarine
canyons may first form by mass-wasting processes on the continental slope, although there is
evidence that some canyons were formed because of fluvial drainage (e.g., Hudson Canyon).
Canyons can alter the physical processes in the surrounding slope waters. Fluctuations in the
velocities of the surface and internal tides can be large near the heads of the canyons, leading to
enhanced mixing and sediment transport in the area. Shepard et al. (1979) concluded that the
strong turbidity currents initiated in study canyons were responsible for enough sediment erosion

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

247

Affected Environment
Physical and Biological Environment

Figure 22 - Principal submarine canyons on southern flank of Georges Bank. Depths in
meters.

70°

69°

68°

67°

66°

42°

Canada

U.S.
#

100

Cape Cod

Georges Bank
1000

41°

Gilbert
Lydonia
Oceanographer

2000

40°

Hydrographer
200

Veatch
Atlantis

39°

Alvin

70°

69°

68°

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

248

67°

66°

Affected Environment
Physical and Biological Environment

Figure 23 - Principal submarine canyons in Mid-Atlantic Bight. Depths in meters.

75°

74°

73°

72°

40°

100
Hudson

200
100 m

Delaware
Bay

200 m

1000
2000

300 m

39°

Middle,
Toms &
Hendrickson
Wilmington

38°

Baltimore

Washington
Norfolk

37°

75°

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

74°

73°

249

72°

Affected Environment
Physical and Biological Environment

and transport to maintain and modify those canyons. Since surface and internal tides are
ubiquitous over the continental shelf and slope, it can be anticipated that these fluctuations are
important for sedimentation processes in other canyons as well. In Lydonia Canyon, Butman et
al. (1982) found that the dominant source of low frequency current variability was related to
passage of warm core Gulf Stream rings rather than the atmospheric events that predominate on
the shelf.
The water masses of the Atlantic continental slope and rise are essentially the same as those of
the North American Basin [defined in Wright and Worthington (1970)]. Worthington (1976)
divided the water column of the slope into three vertical layers: deepwater (colder than 4°C), the
thermocline (4 - 17°C), and surface water (warmer than 17°C). In the North American Basin,
deepwater accounts for two-thirds of all the water, the thermocline for about one-quarter, and
surface water the remainder. In the slope water north of Cape Hatteras, the only warm water
occurs in the Gulf Stream and in seasonally influenced summer waters.
The principal cold water mass in the region is the North Atlantic Deep Water. North Atlantic
Deep Water is comprised of a mixture of five sources: Antarctic Bottom Water, Labrador Sea
Water, Mediterranean Water, Denmark Strait Overflow Water, and Iceland-Scotland Overflow
Water. The thermocline represents a straightforward water mass compared with either the
deepwater or the surface water. Nearly 90% of all thermocline water comes from the water mass
called the Western North Atlantic Water. This water mass is slightly less saline northeast of Cape
Hatteras due to the influx of southward flowing Labrador Coastal Water. Seasonal variability in
slope waters penetrates only the upper 200 m of the water column.
In the winter months, cold temperatures and storm activity create a well mixed layer down to
about 100 - 150 m, but summer warming creates a seasonal thermocline overlain by a surface
layer of low density water. The seasonal thermocline, in combination with reduced storm activity
in the summer, inhibits vertical mixing and reduces the upward transfer of nutrients into the
photic zone.
Two currents found on the slope, the Gulf Stream and Western Boundary Undercurrent, together
represent one of the strongest low frequency horizontal flow systems in the world. Both currents
have an important influence on slope waters. Warm and cold core rings that spin off the Gulf
Stream are a persistent and ubiquitous feature of the northwest Atlantic Ocean (see the “Gulf
Stream” section). The Western Boundary Undercurrent flows to the southwest along the lower
slope and continental rise in a stream about 50 km wide. The boundary current is associated with
the spread of North Atlantic Deep Water, and it forms part of the generally westward flow found
in slope water. North of Cape Hatteras it crosses under the Gulf Stream in a manner not yet
completely understood.
Shelf and slope waters of the northeast region are intermittently affected by the Gulf Stream. The
Gulf Stream begins in the Gulf of Mexico and flows northeastward at an approximate rate of 1
m/s (2 knots), transporting warm waters north along the eastern coast of the United States, and
then east towards the British Isles. Conditions and flow of the Gulf Stream are highly variable on
time scales ranging from days to seasons. Intrusions from the Gulf Stream constitute the
principal source of variability in slope waters off the northeastern shelf.
The location of the Gulf Stream’s shoreward, western boundary is variable because of meanders
and eddies. Gulf Stream eddies are formed when extended meanders enclose a parcel of seawater
and pinch off. These eddies can be cyclonic, meaning they rotate counterclockwise and have a
cold core formed by enclosed slope water (cold core ring), or anticyclonic, meaning they rotate
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

250

Affected Environment
Physical and Biological Environment

clockwise and have a warm core of Sargasso Sea water (warm core ring). The rings are shaped
like a funnel, wider at the top and narrower at the bottom, and can have depths of over 2000 m.
They range in size from approximately 150 - 230 km in diameter. There are 35% more rings and
meanders near Georges Bank than in the Mid-Atlantic region. A net transfer of water on and off
the shelf may result from the interaction of rings and shelf waters. These warm or cold core rings
maintain their identity for several months until they are reabsorbed by the Gulf Stream. The rings
and the Gulf Stream itself have a great influence over oceanographic conditions all along the
continental shelf.

6.1.4.2

Invertebrates

Polychaete annelids represent the most important slope faunal group in terms of numbers of
individuals and species (Wiebe et al. 1987). Ophiuroids (brittle stars) are considered to be among
the most abundant slope organisms, but this group is comprised of relatively few species. The
taxonomic group with the highest species diversity is the peracarid crustaceans (which includes
amphipods, cumaceans, and isopods). Some species of the slope are widely distributed, while
others appear to be restricted to particular ocean basins. The ophiuroids and bivalves appear to
have the broadest distributions, while the peracarid crustaceans appear to be highly restricted
because they brood their young, and lack a planktonic stage of development. In general,
gastropods do not appear to be very abundant; however, past studies are inconclusive since they
have not collected enough individuals for large-scale community and population studies.
In general, slope inhabiting benthic organisms are strongly zoned by depth and/or water
temperature, although these patterns are modified by the presence of topography, including
canyons, channels, and current zonations (Hecker 1990). Moreover, at depths of less than 800 m,
the fauna is extremely variable and the relationships between faunal distribution and substrate,
depth, and geography are less obvious (Wiebe et al. 1987). Fauna occupying hard surface
sediments are not as dense as in comparable shallow water habitats (Wiebe et al. 1987), but there
is an increase in species diversity from the shelf to the intermediate depths of the slope. Diversity
then declines again in the deeper waters of the continental rise and plain. Hecker (1990) identified
four megafaunal zones on the slope of Georges Bank and southern New England (Table 43).
One group of organisms of interest because of the additional structure they can provide for habitat
and their potential long life span are the Alcyonarian soft corals. Soft corals can be bush or
treelike in shape; species found in this form attach to hard substrates such as rock outcrops or
gravel. These species can range in size from a few millimeters to several meters, and the trunk
diameter of large specimens can exceed 10 cm. Other Alcyonarians found in this region include
sea pens and sea pansies (Order Pennatulacea), which are found in a wider range of substrate
types.
As opposed to most slope environments, canyons may develop a lush epifauna. Hecker et al.
(1983) found faunal differences between the canyons and slope environments. Hecker and
Blechschmidt (1979) suggested that faunal differences were due at least in part to increased
environmental heterogeneity in the canyons, including greater substrate variability and nutrient
enrichment. Hecker et al. (1983) found highly patchy faunal assemblages in the canyons, and also
found additional faunal groups located in the canyons, particularly on hard substrates, that do not
appear to occur in other slope environments. Canyons are also thought to serve as nursery areas
for a number of species (Cooper et al. 1987; Hecker 2001). The canyon habitats in Table 7. were
classified by Cooper et al. (1987).

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

251

Affected Environment
Physical and Biological Environment

6.1.4.3

Demersal Fish

Most finfish identified as slope inhabitants on a broad spatial scale (Colvocoresses and Musick
1984; Overholtz and Tyler 1985; Gabriel 1992) (Tables 2 ) are associated with canyon features as
well (Cooper et al. 1987) (Table 44). Finfish identified by broad studies that were not included in
Cooper et al. (1987) include offshore hake, fawn cusk-eel, longfin hake, witch flounder, and
armored searobin. Canyon species (Cooper et al. 1987) that were not discussed in the broad scale
studies include squirrel hake, conger eel, and tilefish. Cusk and ocean pout were identified by
Cooper et al. (1987) as canyon species, but classified in other habitats by the broad scale studies.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

252

Affected Environment
Physical and Biological Environment

Table 44 - Faunal zones of the continental slope of Georges Bank and Southern New England.

Zone
Upper Slope
Upper
Slope

Middle

Lower
Middle
Slope/Transition
Lower Slope

Approximate
Depth (m)
300 - 700

Gradient

Current

Low

Strong

500 - 1300

High

Moderate

1200 - 1700

High

Moderate

> 1600

Low

Strong

Fauna
Dense
filter
feeders;
Scleratinians
(Dasmosmilia
lymani,
Flabellum
alabastrum), quill worm (Hyalinoecia)
Sparse scavengers; red crab (Geryon
quinqueidens),
long-nosed
eel
(Synaphobranchus), common grenadier
(Nezumia).
Alcyonarians (Acanella
arbuscula, Eunephthya florida) in areas of
hard substrate
Sparse suspension feeders; cerianthids, sea
pens (Distichoptilum gracile)
Dense suspension and deposit feeders;
ophiurid
(Ophiomusium
lymani),
cerianthids, sea pens

From Hecker (1990)
Table 45 – Georges Bank Habitat Types

Geologic Description: Habitat
Habitat
Type
I

III

types for the canyons of
Georges Bank, including
characteristic fauna.

Canyon
Locations

Sand or semiconsolidated silt
substrate (claylike consistency)
with less than 5% overlay of
gravel.
Relatively featureless
except for conical sediment
mounds.
Sand or semiconsolidated silt
substrate (claylike consistency)
with more than 5% overlay of
gravel. Relatively featureless.
Sand or semiconsolidated silt
(claylike consistency) overlain by
siltstone outcrops and talus up to
boulder size. Featured bottom
with erosion by animals and
scouring.
Consolidated silt substrate, heavily
burrowed/excavated.
Slope
generally more than 5º and less
than 50º. Termed “pueblo village”
habitat.
Sand dune substrate.

Walls and
axis

Cerianthid, pandalid shrimp, white colonial
anemone, Jonah crab, starfishes, portunid
crab, greeneye, brittle stars, mosaic worm,
red hake, fourspot flounder, shellless hermit
crab, silver hake, gulf stream flounder

Walls

Cerianthids, galatheid crab, squirrel hake,
white colonial anemone, Jonah crab, silver
hake, sea stars, ocean pout, brittle stars,
shellless hermit crab, greeneye
White colonial anemone, pandalid shrimp,
cleaner shrimp, rock anemone, white hake,
sea stars, ocean pout, conger eel, brittle
stars, Jonah crab, lobster, blackbelly
rosefish, galatheid crab, mosaic worm,
tilefish
Sea stars, blackbelly rosefish, Jonah crab,
lobster, white hake, cusk, ocean pout,
cleaner shrimp, conger eel, tilefish, galatheid
crab, shellless hermit crab

Walls

Axis

Most Commonly Observed Fauna

Sea stars, white hake, Jonah crab, goosefish

From Cooper et al. (1987). Faunal characterization is for depths < 230 m only.
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

253

Affected Environment
Physical and Biological Environment

6.1.5 Essential Fish Habitat
The environment that could potentially be affected by the Proposed Action has been identified as
EFH for benthic life stages of species that are managed under the NE Multispecies; Atlantic Sea
Scallop; Monkfish; Deep-Sea Red Crab; Northeast Skate Complex; Atlantic Herring; Summer
Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass; Tilefish; Squid, Atlantic Mackerel, and Butterfish; Atlantic
Surfclam and Ocean Quahog Fishery Management Plans. EFH for the species managed under
these FMPs includes a wide variety of benthic habitats in state and federal waters throughout the
Northeast U.S. Shelf Ecosystem. EFH descriptions of the geographic range, depth, and bottom
types for all the benthic life stages of the species managed under these FMPs are summarized in
the following table.
Table 46 - EFH descriptions for all benthic life stages of federally-managed species in the U.S.
Northeast Shelf Ecosystem. Species with EFH vulnerable to bottom tending gear are shaded (see
Stevenson et al. 2004).

Species

Life
Geographic Area of EFH
Stage
American
juvenile GOME and estuaries from
plaice
Passamaquoddy Bay to Saco Bay,
ME and from Mass. Bay to Cape Cod
Bay, MA
American
adult
GOME and estuaries from
plaice
Passamaquoddy Bay to Saco Bay,
ME and from Mass. Bay to Cape Cod
Bay, MA
Atlantic cod juvenile GOME, GB, eastern portion of
continental shelf off southern NE and
following estuaries: Passamaquoddy
Bay to Saco Bay; Mass. Bay, Boston
Harbor, Cape Cod Bay, Buzzards
Bay
Atlantic cod adult
GOME, GB, eastern portion of
continental shelf off southern NE and
following estuaries: Passamaquoddy
Bay to Saco Bay; Mass. Bay, Boston
Harbor, Cape Cod Bay, Buzzards
Bay
Atlantic
juvenile GOME, GB
halibut
Atlantic
halibut

adult

Atlantic
herring

eggs

Depth
EFH Description
(meters)
45 - 150 Bottom habitats with
fine grained sediments
or a substrate of sand or
gravel
45 - 175 Bottom habitats with
fine grained sediments
or a substrate of sand or
gravel
25 - 75 Bottom habitats with a
substrate of cobble or
gravel

10 - 150 Bottom habitats with a
substrate of rocks,
pebbles, or gravel

20 - 60 Bottom habitats with a
substrate of sand, gravel,
or clay
GOME, GB
100 - 700 Bottom habitats with a
substrate of sand, gravel,
or clay
GOME, GB and following estuaries: 20 – 80 Bottom habitats attached
Englishman/Machias Bay, Casco
to gravel, sand, cobble
Bay, and Cape Cod Bay
or shell fragments, also
on macrophytes

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

254

Affected Environment
Physical and Biological Environment

Species
Atlantic sea
scallop

Atlantic sea
scallop

Haddock
Haddock

Monkfish

Ocean pout

Life
Geographic Area of EFH
Stage
juvenile GOME, GB, southern NE and middle
Atlantic south to Virginia-North
Carolina border and following
estuaries: Passamaquoddy Bay to
Sheepscot R.; Casco Bay, Great Bay,
Mass Bay, and Cape Cod Bay
adult
GOME, GB, southern NE and middle
Atlantic south to Virginia-North
Carolina border and following
estuaries: Passamaquoddy Bay to
Sheepscot R.; Casco Bay, Great Bay,
Mass Bay, and Cape Cod Bay
juvenile GB, GOME, middle Atlantic south to
Delaware Bay

Depth
EFH Description
(meters)
18 - 110 Bottom habitats with a
substrate of cobble,
shells, and silt

18 - 110 Bottom habitats with a
substrate of cobble,
shells, coarse/gravelly
sand, and sand

35 - 100 Bottom habitats with a
substrate of pebble and
gravel
adult
GB and eastern side of Nantucket
40 - 150 Bottom habitats with a
Shoals, throughout GOME,
substrate of broken
*additional area of Nantucket Shoals,
ground, pebbles, smooth
and Great South Channel
hard sand, and smooth
areas between rocky
patches
juvenile Outer continental shelf in the middle 25 - 200 Bottom habitats with
Atlantic, mid-shelf off southern NE,
substrates of a sandshell
all areas of GOME
mix, algae covered
rocks, hard sand, pebbly
gravel, or mud
adult
Outer continental shelf in the middle 25 - 200 Bottom habitats with
substrates of a sandshell
Atlantic, mid-shelf off southern NE,
mix, algae covered
outer perimeter of GB, all areas of
rocks, hard sand, pebbly
GOME
gravel, or mud
eggs
GOME, GB, southern NE, and
<50
Bottom habitats,
middle Atlantic south to Delaware
generally in hard bottom
Bay, and the following estuaries:
sheltered nests, holes, or
Passamaquoddy Bay to Saco Bay,
crevices
Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bay
juvenile GOME, GB, southern NE, middle
< 50 Bottom habitats in close
Atlantic south to Delaware Bay and
proximity to hard
the following estuaries:
bottom nesting areas
Passamaquoddy Bay to Saco Bay;
Mass. Bay, and Cape Cod Bay
adult
GOME, GB, southern NE, middle
< 80 Bottom habitats, often
Atlantic south to Delaware Bay and
smooth bottom near
the following estuaries:
rocks or algae
Passamaquoddy Bay to Saco Bay;
Mass. Bay, Boston Harbor, and Cape
Cod Bay

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

255

Affected Environment
Physical and Biological Environment

Species

Redfish

Life
Geographic Area of EFH
Stage
juvenile Outer continental shelf of GB and
southern NE south to Cape Hatteras,
NC
adult
Outer continental shelf of GB and
southern NE south to Cape Hatteras,
NC
juvenile GOME, GB, and the following
estuaries: Passamaquoddy Bay to
Saco Bay; Great Bay to Waquoit
Bay; Long Island Sound, Great South
Bay
adult
GOME, GB, southern NE, and
middle Atlantic south to New Jersey
and the following estuaries:
Passamaquoddy Bay, Damariscotta
R., Mass Bay, Cape Cod Bay, Long
Island Sound
juvenile GOME, GB, continental shelf off
southern NE, and middle Atlantic
south to Cape Hatteras and the
following estuaries: Passamaquoddy
Bay to Saco Bay; Great Bay, Mass.
Bay to Cape Cod Bay; Buzzards Bay
to Conn. R.; Hudson R./ Raritan Bay,
and Chesapeake Bay
adult
GOME, GB, continental shelf off
southern NE, and middle Atlantic
south to Cape Hatteras and the
following estuaries: Passamaquoddy
Bay to Saco Bay; Great Bay, Mass.
Bay to Cape Cod Bay; Buzzards Bay
to Conn. R.; Hudson R./ Raritan Bay,
Delaware Bay, and Chesapeake Bay
juvenile GOME, southern edge of GB

Redfish

adult

GOME, southern edge of GB

White hake

adult

GOME, southern edge of GB,
southern NE to middle Atlantic and
the following estuaries:
Passamaquoddy Bay to Great Bay;
Mass. Bay to Cape Cod Bay

Offshore
hake
Offshore
hake
Pollock

Pollock

Red hake

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

256

Depth
EFH Description
(meters)
170 - 350 Bottom habitats
150 - 380 Bottom habitats
0 – 250 Bottom habitats with
aquatic vegetation or a
substrate of sand, mud,
or rocks
15 – 365 Hard bottom habitats
including artificial reefs

< 100

Bottom habitats with
substrate of shell
fragments, including
areas with an abundance
of live scallops

10 - 130 Bottom habitats in
depressions with a
substrate of sand and
mud

25 - 400 Bottom habitats with a
substrate of silt, mud, or
hard bottom
50 - 350 Bottom habitats with a
substrate of silt, mud, or
hard bottom
5 - 325 Bottom habitats with
substrate of mud or fine
grained sand

Affected Environment
Physical and Biological Environment

Species

Life
Geographic Area of EFH
Stage
Silver hake juvenile GOME, GB, continental shelf off
southern NE, middle Atlantic south
to Cape Hatteras and the following
estuaries: Passamaquoddy Bay to
Casco Bay, Mass. Bay to Cape Cod
Bay
Silver hake adult
GOME, GB, continental shelf off
southern NE, middle Atlantic south
to Cape Hatteras and the following
estuaries: Passamaquoddy Bay to
Casco Bay, Mass. Bay to Cape Cod
Bay
Windowpane juvenile GOME, GB, southern NE, middle
flounder
Atlantic south to Cape Hatteras and
the following estuaries:
Passamaquoddy Bay to Great Bay;
Mass. Bay to Chesapeake Bay
Windowpane adult
GOME, GB, southern NE, middle
flounder
Atlantic south to Virginia - NC
border and the following estuaries:
Passamaquoddy Bay to Great Bay;
Mass. Bay to Chesapeake Bay
Winter
eggs
GB, inshore areas of GOME,
flounder
southern NE, and middle Atlantic
south to Delaware Bay
Winter
juvenile GB, inshore areas of GOME,
flounder
southern NE, middle Atlantic south
to Delaware Bay and the following
estuaries: Passamaquoddy Bay to
Chincoteague Bay
Winter
adult
GB, inshore areas of GOME,
flounder
southern NE, middle Atlantic south
to Delaware Bay and the following
estuaries: Passamaquoddy Bay to
Chincoteague Bay
Witch
juvenile GOME, outer continental shelf from
flounder
GB south to Cape Hatteras
Witch
adult
GOME, outer continental shelf from
flounder
GB south to Chesapeake Bay
Yellowtail
juvenile GB, GOME, southern NE continental
flounder
shelf south to Delaware Bay and the
following estuaries: Sheepscot R.,
Casco Bay, Mass. Bay to Cape Cod
Bay

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

257

Depth
EFH Description
(meters)
20 – 270 Bottom habitats of all
substrate types

30 – 325 Bottom habitats of all
substrate types

1 - 100 Bottom habitats with
substrate of mud or fine
grained sand
1 - 75

Bottom habitats with
substrate of mud or fine
grained sand

Bottom habitats with a
substrate of sand, muddy
sand, mud, and gravel
0.1 – 10 Bottom habitats with a
(1 - 50, substrate of mud or fine
age 1+) grained sand
1 - 100 Bottom habitats
including estuaries with
substrates of mud, sand,
grave
50 - 450 Bottom habitats with
to 1500 fine grained substrate
25 - 300 Bottom habitats with
fine grained substrate
20 - 50 Bottom habitats with
substrate of sand or sand
and mud

Affected Environment
Physical and Biological Environment

Species
Yellowtail
flounder

Red crab

Black sea
bass

Ocean
quahog

Atlantic
surfclam

Life
Geographic Area of EFH
Depth
EFH Description
Stage
(meters)
adult
GB, GOME, southern NE continental 20 - 50 Bottom habitats with
shelf south to Delaware Bay and the
substrate of sand or sand
following estuaries: Sheepscot R.,
and mud
Casco Bay, Mass. Bay to Cape Cod
Bay
juvenile Southern flank of GB and south the
700 - Bottom habitats of
Cape Hatteras, NC
1800 continental slope with a
substrate of silts, clays,
and all silt-clay-sand
composites
adult
Southern flank of GB and south the
200 - Bottom habitats of
Cape Hatteras, NC
1300 continental slope with a
substrate of silts, clays,
and all silt-clay-sand
composites
juvenile Demersal waters over continental
1 - 38 Rough bottom, shellfish
shelf from GOME to Cape Hatteras,
and eelgrass beds,
NC, also includes estuaries from
manmade structures in
Buzzards Bay to Long Island Sound;
sandy-shelly areas,
Gardiners Bay, Barnegat Bay to
offshore clam beds, and
Chesapeake Bay; Tangier/ Pocomoke
shell patches may be
Sound, and James River
used during wintering
adult
Demersal waters over continental
20 - 50 Structured habitats
shelf from GOME to Cape Hatteras,
(natural and manmade),
NC, also includes estuaries: Buzzards
sand and shell substrates
Bay, Narragansett Bay, Gardiners
preferred
Bay, Great South Bay, Barnegat Bay
to Chesapeake Bay; Tangier/
Pocomoke Sound, and James River
juvenile Eastern edge of GB and GOME
8 - 245 Throughout substrate to
throughout the Atlantic EEZ
a depth of 3 ft within
federal waters, occurs
progressively further
offshore between Cape
Cod and Cape Hatteras
adult
Eastern edge of GB and GOME
8 - 245 Throughout substrate to
throughout the Atlantic EEZ
a depth of 3 ft within
federal waters, occurs
progressively further
offshore between Cape
Cod and Cape Hatteras
juvenile Eastern edge of GB and the GOME
0 - 60, Throughout substrate to
a depth of 3 ft within
throughout Atlantic EEZ
low
density federal waters, burrow in
beyond medium to coarse sand
and gravel substrates,
38
also found in silty to fine
sand, but not in mud

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

258

Affected Environment
Physical and Biological Environment

Species
Atlantic
surfclam

Scup

Summer
flounder

Tilefish

Longfin
squid

Life
Geographic Area of EFH
Stage
adult
Eastern edge of GB and the GOME
throughout Atlantic EEZ

Depth
(meters)
0 - 60,
low
density
beyond
38
(0 - 38)

juvenile Continental shelf from GOME to
Cape Hatteras, NC includes the
following estuaries: Mass. Bay, Cape
Cod Bay to Long Island Sound;
Gardiners Bay to Delaware Inland
Bays; and Chesapeake Bay
(2 -185)
adult
Continental shelf from GOME to
Cape Hatteras, NC includes the
following estuaries: Cape Cod Bay to
Long Island Sound; Gardiners Bay to
Hudson R./ Raritan Bay; Delaware
Bay and Inland Bays; and
Chesapeake Bay
juvenile Over continental shelf from GOME 0.5 – 5 in
to Cape Hatteras, NC; south of Cape estuary
Hatteras to Florida; also includes
estuaries from Waquoit Bay to James
R.; Albemarle Sound to Indian R.
0 - 25
Over continental shelf from GOME
to Cape Hatteras, NC; south of Cape
Hatteras to Florida; also includes
estuaries from Buzzards Bay,
Narragansett Bay, Conn. R. to James
R.; Albemarle Sound to Broad R.; St.
Johns R., and Indian R.
juvenile US/Canadian boundary to VA/NC
76 - 365
boundary (shelf break, submarine
canyon walls, and flanks: GB to Cape
Hatteras)
adult
US/Canadian boundary to VA/NC
76 - 365
boundary (shelf break, submarine
canyon walls, and flanks: GB to Cape
Hatteras)
eggs
GB, southern NE and middle Atlantic
<50
to mouth of Chesapeake Bay
adult

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

259

EFH Description
Throughout substrate to
a depth of 3 ft within
federal waters
Demersal waters north
of Cape Hatteras and
inshore on various
sands, mud, mussel, and
eelgrass bed type
substrates
Demersal waters north
of Cape Hatteras and
inshore estuaries
(various substrate types)

Demersal waters, on
muddy substrate but
prefer mostly sand;
found in the lower
estuaries in flats,
channels, salt marsh
creeks, and eelgrass beds
Demersal waters and
estuaries

Rough bottom, small
burrows, and sheltered
areas; substrate rocky,
stiff clay, human debris
Rough bottom, small
burrows, and sheltered
areas; substrate rocky,
stiff clay, human debris
Egg masses attached to
rocks, boulders and
vegetation on sand or
mud bottom

Affected Environment
Physical and Biological Environment

Species

Life
Geographic Area of EFH
Depth
EFH Description
Stage
(meters)
Golden crab juvenile Chesapeake Bay to the south through 290 - 570 Continental slope in flat
the Florida Straight (and into the Gulf
areas of foraminifera
of Mexico)
ooze, on distinct mounds
of dead coral, ripple
habitat, dunes, black
pebble habitat, low
outcrop, and soft
bioturbated habitat
Golden crab adult
Chesapeake Bay to the south through 290 - 570 Continental slope in flat
the Florida Straight (and into the Gulf
areas of foraminifera
of Mexico)
ooze, on distinct mounds
of dead coral, ripple
habitat, dunes, black
pebble habitat, low
outcrop, and soft
bioturbated habitat
Barndoor
juvenile Eastern GOME, GB, Southern NE,
l0 - 750, Bottom habitats with
skate
Mid-Atlantic Bight to Hudson
mostly < mud, gravel, and sand
Canyon
150
substrates
Barndoor
adult
Eastern GOME, GB, Southern NE,
l0 - 750, Bottom habitats with
skate
Mid-Atlantic Bight to Hudson
mostly < mud, gravel, and sand
Canyon
150
substrates
Clearnose
juvenile GOME, along shelf to Cape Hatteras, 0 – 500, Bottom habitats with
skate
NC; includes the estuaries from
mostly < substrate of soft bottom
Hudson River/Raritan Bay south to
111
along continental shelf
the Chesapeake Bay mainstem
and rocky or gravelly
bottom
Clearnose
adult
GOME, along shelf to Cape Hatteras, 0 – 500, Bottom habitats with
skate
NC; includes the estuaries from
mostly < substrate of soft bottom
Hudson River/Raritan Bay south to
111
along continental shelf
the Chesapeake Bay mainstem
and rocky or gravelly
bottom
Little skate juvenile GB through Mid-Atlantic Bight to
0 - 137, Bottom habitats with
Cape Hatteras, NC; includes the
mostly 73 sandy or gravelly
estuaries from Buzzards Bay south to
- 91
substrate or mud
the Chesapeake Bay mainstem
Little skate adult
GB through Mid-Atlantic Bight to
0 - 137, Bottom habitats with
Cape Hatteras, NC; includes the
mostly 73 sandy or gravelly
estuaries from Buzzards Bay south to
- 91
substrate or mud
the Chesapeake Bay mainstem
Rosette skate juvenile Nantucket shoals and southern edge 33 - 530, Bottom habitats with
of GB to Cape Hatteras, NC
mostly 74 soft substrate, including
- 274 sand/mud bottoms, mud
with echinoid and
ophiuroid fragments,
and shell and pteropod
ooze

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

260

Affected Environment
Physical and Biological Environment

Species

Life
Geographic Area of EFH
Stage
Rosette skate adult
Nantucket shoals and southern edge
of GB to Cape Hatteras, NC

Smooth skate juvenile

Smooth skate adult

Thorny skate juvenile

Thorny skate adult

Winter skate juvenile

Winter skate adult

White hake

juvenile

Depth
EFH Description
(meters)
33 - 530, Bottom habitats with
mostly 74 soft substrate, including
- 274 sand/mud bottoms, mud
with echinoid and
ophiuroid fragments,
and shell and pteropod
ooze
Offshore banks of GOME
31 – 874, Bottom habitats with a
mostly substrate of soft mud
110 - 457 (silt and clay), sand,
broken shells, gravel and
pebbles
Offshore banks of GOME
31 – 874, Bottom habitats with a
mostly substrate of soft mud
110 - 457 (silt and clay), sand,
broken shells, gravel and
pebbles
GOME and GB
18 - 2000, Bottom habitats with a
mostly substrate of sand, gravel,
111 - 366 broken shell, pebbles,
and soft mud
GOME and GB
18 - 2000, Bottom habitats with a
mostly substrate of sand, gravel,
111 - 366 broken shell, pebbles,
and soft mud
Cape Cod Bay, GB, southern NE
0 - 371, Bottom habitats with
shelf through Mid-Atlantic Bight to mostly < substrate of sand and
North Carolina; includes the estuaries
111
gravel or mud
from Buzzards Bay south to the
Chesapeake Bay mainstem
Cape Cod Bay, GB southern NE
0 - 371, Bottom habitats with
shelf through Mid-Atlantic Bight to mostly < substrate of sand and
North Carolina; includes the estuaries
111
gravel or mud
from Buzzards Bay south to the
Chesapeake Bay mainstem
GOME, southern edge of GB,
5 - 225 Pelagic stage - pelagic
southern NE to middle Atlantic and
waters; demersal stage the following estuaries:
bottom habitat with
Passamaquoddy Bay to Great Bay;
seagrass beds or
Mass. Bay to Cape Cod Bay
substrate of mud or fine
grained sand

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

261

Affected Environment
Physical and Biological Environment

6.1.6 Habitat Effects of Fishing
Amendment 13 (NEFMC 2003) describes the general effects of bottom trawls and dredges on
benthic marine habitats. The primary source document used for this analysis was an advisory
report prepared for the International Council for the Exploration of the Seas (ICES 2000) that
identified a number of possible effects of beam trawls and bottom otter trawls on benthic habitats.
This report is based on scientific findings summarized in Lindeboom and de Groot (1998), which
were peer-reviewed by an ICES working group. The focus of the report is the Irish Sea and
North Sea, but it also includes assessments of effects in other areas. Two general conclusions
were: 1) low-energy environments are more affected by bottom trawling; and 2) bottom trawling
can affect the potential for habitat recovery (i.e., after trawling ceases, benthic communities and
habitats may not always return to their original pre-impacted state). Regarding direct habitat
effects, the report also concluded that:
Loss or dispersal of physical features such as peat banks or boulder reefs (changes are always
permanent and lead to an overall change in habitat diversity, which can in turn lead to the local
loss of species and species assemblages dependant on such features);
Loss of structure-forming organisms such as bryozoans, tube-dwelling polychaetes, hydroids,
seapens, sponges, mussel beds, and oyster beds (changes may be permanent and can lead to an
overall change in habitat diversity which can in turn lead to the local loss of species and species
assemblages dependant on such biogenic features);
Reduction in complexity caused by redistributing and mixing of surface sediments and the
degradation of habitat and biogenic features, leading to a decease in the physical patchiness of the
sea floor (changes are not likely to be permanent);
Alteration of the detailed physical features of the sea floor by reshaping seabed features such as
sand ripples and damaging burrows and associated structures which provide important habitats
for smaller animals and can be used by fish to reduce their energy requirements (changes are not
likely to be permanent).
A more recent evaluation of the habitat effects of trawling and dredging was prepared by the
Committee on Ecosystem Effects of Fishing for the National Research Council’s Ocean Studies
Board (NRC 2002). Trawl gear evaluated by the Committee included bottom otter trawls and
beam trawls. Dredge gear included hydraulic clam dredges, non-hydraulic oyster, conch, and
crab dredges, and scallop dredges with and without teeth. This report identified four general
conclusions regarding the types of habitat modifications caused by trawls and dredges.
Trawling and dredging reduce habitat complexity
Repeated trawling and dredging result in discernable changes in benthic communities
Bottom trawling reduces the productivity of benthic habitats
Fauna that live in low natural disturbance regimes are generally more vulnerable to fishing gear
disturbance
An additional source of information that relates specifically to the Northeast region is the report
of a “Workshop on the Effects of Fishing Gear on Marine Habitats off the Northeastern U.S.”
sponsored by the New England and Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Councils in October 2001
(NEFSC 2002). A panel of invited fishing industry members and experts in the fields of benthic
ecology, fishery ecology, geology, and fishing gear technology was convened for the purpose of
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

262

Affected Environment
Physical and Biological Environment

assisting the New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC), the Mid-Atlantic Fishery
Management Council (MAFMC) and NMFS with: 1) evaluating the existing scientific research
on the effects of fishing gear on benthic habitats; 2) determining the degree of impact from
various gear types on benthic habitats in the Northeast; 3) specifying the type of evidence that is
available to support the conclusions made about the degree of impact.; 4) ranking the relative
importance of gear impacts on various habitat types; and 5) providing recommendations on
measures to minimize those adverse impacts. The panel was provided with a summary of
available research studies that summarized information relating to the effects of bottom otter
trawls, New Bedford style scallop dredges, and hydraulic clam dredges. Relying on this
information plus professional judgment, the panel identified the effects, and the degree of impact,
of these three gears plus bottom gillnets, pots, and longlines on mud, sand, and gravel/rock
bottom habitats.
Additional information is provided in this report on the recovery times for each type of impact for
all three gears in mud, sand, and gravel habitats (“gravel” includes other hard-bottom habitats).
This information made it possible to rank these three substrates in terms of their vulnerability to
the effects of bottom trawling and dredging, although other factors such as frequency of
disturbance from fishing and from natural events are also important. In general, impacts were
determined to be greater in gravel/rock habitats with attached epifauna. Impacts on biological
structure were ranked higher than impacts on physical structure and otter trawls and scallop
dredges were ranked much higher than hydraulic dredges or stationary gears. Effects of trawls on
major physical features in mud (deep-water clay-bottom habitats) and gravel bottom were
described as permanent, and impacts to biological and physical structure were given recovery
times of months to years in mud and gravel. Impacts of trawling on physical structure in sand
were of shorter duration (days to months) given the exposure of most continental shelf sand
habitats to strong bottom currents and/or frequent storms. For scallop dredges in gravel, recovery
from impacts to biological structure was estimated to take several years and, for impacts to
physical structure, months to years. In sand, biological structure was estimated to recover within
months to years and physical structure within days to months.
The contents of a second expert panel report, produced by the Pew Charitable Trusts and entitled
“Shifting Gears: Addressing the Collateral Impacts of Fishing Methods in U.S. Waters” (Morgan
and Chuenpagdee 2003), was also summarized in Amendment 13. This group evaluated the
habitat effects of ten different commercial fishing gears used in U.S. waters. The report
concluded that bottom trawls and dredges have very high habitat impacts, bottom gillnets and
pots and traps have low to medium impacts, and bottom longlines have low impacts. As in the
ICES and NRC reports, individual types of trawls and dredges were not evaluated. The impacts
of bottom gill nets, traps, and longlines were limited to warm or shallow-water environments with
rooted aquatic vegetation or “live bottom” environments (e.g., coral reefs).
Results of a review of 44 gear effect studies published through the summer of 2002 that were
relevant (same gears and habitats) to the NE region of the U.S. (see Stevenson et al. 2004) are
also summarized in Amendment 13. Based on these studies, positive and negative effects of
bottom otter trawls, New Bedford-style scallop dredges, and hydraulic clam dredges are
summarized by substrate type in Amendment 13, along with recovery times (when known).
Whenever possible, only statistically significant results were reported. In general, these studies
confirm the previous determinations of potential adverse impacts of trawls and dredges found in
the ICES (2000), NRC (2002), NEFSC (2002), and Morgan and Chuenpagdee (2003) reports.
The results of these 44 studies are summarized below for each gear/habitat type combination.
Studies of the effects of multiple gear types are not included. Physical and biological effects for
each gear-substrate category are summarized in separate paragraphs. When necessary, biological
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

263

Affected Environment
Physical and Biological Environment

effects are summarized separately for single disturbance and repeated disturbance experimental
studies, and for non-experimental studies. For more detailed information, including the
identification of each study, see Stevenson et al. (2004). An up-dated summary of gear effects
research studies that are relevant to the NE region will be included in the revised gear effects
section of the NEFMC Omnibus EFH Amendment 2 (Phase 2), which is currently being
developed.

6.1.6.1

Otter Trawls – Mud

Results of 11 studies are summarized, five done in North America, four in Europe, and one in
Australia. One was performed in an inter-tidal habitat, one in very deep water (250 m), and the
rest in a depth range of 14-90 meters. Seven of them were experimental studies, three were
observational, and one was both. Two examined physical effects, six of them assessed biological
effects, and three studies examined physical and biological effects. One study evaluated
geochemical sediment effects. In this habitat type, biological evaluations focused on infauna: all
nine biological assessments examined infaunal organisms and four of them also included
epifauna. Habitat recovery was monitored on five occasions. Two studies evaluated the longterm effects of commercial trawling, one by comparing benthic samples from a fishing ground
with samples collected near a shipwreck, while another evaluated changes in macrofaunal
abundance during periods of low, moderate, and high fishing effort during a 27-year time period.
Four of the experimental studies were done in closed or previously un-trawled areas and three in
commercially fished areas. One study examined the effects of a single tow and six involved
multiple tows, five restricted trawling to a single event (e.g., one day) and two examined the
cumulative effects of continuous disturbance.

6.1.6.1.1 Physical Effects
Trawl doors produce furrows up to 10 cm deep and berms 10-20 cm high on mud bottom.
Evidence from four studies indicates that there is a large variation in the duration of these features
(2-18 months). There is also evidence that repeated tows increase bottom roughness, fine surface
sediments are re-suspended and dispersed, and rollers compress sediment. A single pass of a
trawl did not cause sediments to be turned over, but single and multiple tows smoothed surface
features.

6.1.6.1.2 Biological Effects
Single disturbance experimental studies
Two single-event studies were conducted in commercially trawled areas. Experimental trawling
in intertidal mud habitat in the Bay of Fundy (Canada) disrupted diatom mats and reduced the
abundance of nematodes in trawl door furrows, but recovery was complete after 1-3 months.
There were no effects on infaunal polychaetes. In a sub-tidal mud habitat (30-40 m deep),
benthic infauna were not affected. In two assessments performed in areas that had not been
affected by mobile bottom gear for many years, effects were more severe. In both cases, total
infaunal abundance and the abundance of individual polychaete and bivalve species declined
immediately after trawling. In one of these studies, there were also immediate and significant
reductions in the number of species and species diversity. Positive effects included reduced
porosity, increased food value, and increased chlorophyll production in surface sediments. Most
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

264

Affected Environment
Physical and Biological Environment

of these effects lasted less than 3.5 months. In the other, two tows removed 28% of the epifauna
on mud and sand substrate and epifauna in all trawled quadrats showed signs of damage. These
results were not reported separately for mud bottom.
Repeated disturbance experimental studies
Two studies of the effects of repeated trawling were conducted in areas that had been closed to
fishing for six years and >25 years. In one, multiple tows were made weekly for a year and, in
the other, monthly for 16 months. In one case, 61% of the benthic species sampled tended to be
negatively affected, but significant reductions were only noted for brittlestars. In the other,
repeated trawling had no significant effect on the numbers of infaunal individuals or biomass. In
this study, the number of infaunal species increased by the end of the disturbance period. Some
species (e.g., polychaetes) increased in abundance, while others (e.g., bivalves) decreased.
Community structure was altered after five months of trawling and did not fully recover until 18
months after trawling ended.
Observational studies
An analysis of benthic sample data collected from a fishing ground over a 27-year period of high,
medium, and low levels of fishing effort showed an increased abundance of organisms belonging
to taxa that were expected to increase at higher disturbance levels, whereas those that were
expected to decrease did not change in abundance. Results of another study indicated that a
trawling ground had fewer benthic organisms and fewer species than an un-exploited site near a
shipwreck. Trawling in deep water apparently dislodged infaunal polychaetes, causing them to
be suspended in near-bottom water.

6.1.6.2

Otter Trawls – Sand

Results of 14 studies are summarized. Six studies were conducted in North America (three in a
single long-term experiment on the Grand Banks), four in Australia, and four in Europe. Ten are
experimental studies. Eight of them were done in depths less than 60 m, one at 80 m, and four in
depths greater than 100 m. Three studies examined the physical effects of trawling, ten were
limited to biological effects, and one examined both. Five of the biological studies were
restricted to epifauna, one only examined infauna, and five included epifauna and infauna. The
only experiment that was designed to monitor recovery was the one on the Grand Banks, although
surveys conducted in Australia documented changes in the abundance of benthic organisms five
years after closed areas were established. Two studies compared benthic communities in trawled
areas of sandy substrate with undisturbed areas near a shipwreck. Six studies were performed in
commercially exploited areas, five in closed areas, two compared closed and open areas, and one
was done in a test tank. All the experimental studies examined the effects of multiple tows (up to
6 per unit area of bottom) and observational studies in Australia assessed the effects of 1-4 tows
on emergent epifauna. Trawling in four studies was limited to a single event (1 day to 1 week),
whereas the Grand Banks experiment was designed to evaluate the immediate and cumulative
effects of annual 5-day trawling events in a closed area over a three-year period.

6.1.6.2.1 Physical effects
A test tank experiment showed that trawl doors produce furrows in sandy bottom that are 2 cm
deep, with a berm 5.5 cm high. In sandy substrate, trawls smoothed seafloor topographic
features, re-suspended and dispersed finer surface sediment, but had no lasting effects on

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

265

Affected Environment
Physical and Biological Environment

sediment composition. Trawl door tracks lasted up to one year in deep water, but only for a few
days in shallow water. Seafloor topography recovered within a year.

6.1.6.2.2 Biological effects
Single disturbance experimental studies
Two single-event studies were conducted in commercially trawled areas. In one of these studies,
otter trawling caused high mortalities of large sedentary and/or immobile epifaunal species. In
the other, there were no effects on benthic community diversity. Neither of these studies
investigated effects on total abundance or biomass. Two studies were performed in un-exploited
areas. One study documented effects on attached epifauna. In one, single tows reduced the
density of attached macrobenthos (>20 cm) by 15% and four tows by 50%. In the other, two
tows removed 28% of the epifauna on mud and sand substrate and epifauna in all trawled
quadrats showed signs of damage. These results were not reported separately for sand bottom.
Total infaunal abundance was not affected, but the abundance of one family of polychaetes was
reduced.
Repeated disturbance experimental studies
Intensive experimental trawling on the Grand Banks reduced the total abundance and biomass of
epibenthic organisms and the biomass and average size of a number of epibenthic species.
Significant reductions in total infaunal abundance and the abundance of 15 taxa (mostly
polychaetes) were detected during only one of three years, and there were no effects on biomass
or taxonomic diversity.
Observational studies
Changes in macrofaunal abundance in a lightly trawled location in the North Sea were not
correlated with historical changes in fishing effort, but there were fewer benthic organisms and
species in a trawling ground in the Irish Sea than in an un-exploited site near a shipwreck. In the
other “shipwreck study,” however, changes in infaunal community structure at increasing
distances from the wreck were related to changes in sediment grain size and organic carbon
content. The Alaska study showed that epifauna attached to sand were less abundant inside a
closed area, significantly so for sponges and anemones. A single tow in a closed area in Australia
removed 89% of the large sponges in the trawl path.

6.1.6.3

Otter Trawls – Gravel/Rocky Substrate

Three studies of otter trawl effects were conducted on gravel and rocky substrates. All three were
conducted in North America. Two were done in glacially-affected areas in depths of about 100 to
300 meters using submersibles and the third was done in a shallow coastal area in the southeast
U.S. One involved observations made in a gravel/boulder habitat in two different years before
and after trawling affected the bottom. The other two were experimental studies of the effects of
single trawl tows. One of these was done in a relatively un-exploited gravel habitat and the other
on a smooth rock substrate in an area not affected by trawling. Two studies examined effects to
the seafloor and on attached epifauna and one only examined effects on epifauna. There were no
assessments of effects on infauna. Recovery was evaluated in one case for a year.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

266

Affected Environment
Physical and Biological Environment

6.1.6.3.1 Physical effects
Trawling displaced boulders and removed mud covering boulders and rocks and rubber
tire ground gear left furrows 1-8 cm deep in less compact gravel sediment.
6.1.6.3.2 Biological effects
Trawling in gravel and rocky substrate reduced the abundance of attached benthic
organisms (e.g., sponges, anemones, and soft corals) and their associated epifauna and
damaged sponges, soft corals, and brittle stars. Sponges were more severely damaged by
a single pass of a trawl than soft corals, but 12 months after trawling all affected species –
including one species of stony coral – had fully recovered to their original abundance and
there were no signs of damage.
6.1.6.4

Otter Trawls – Mixed Substrates

Three studies of the effects of otter trawls on mixed substrates are summarized. All three
were conducted in North America and relied on sonar and observations made by divers or
from a submersible. One of them combined submersible observations and benthic
sampling to compare the physical and biological effects of trawling in a lightly fished and
heavily fished location in California with the same depth and variety of sediment types.
One was a survey of seafloor features produced by trawls in a variety of bottom types and
the other primarily examined the physical effects of single trawl tows on sand and mud
bottom.
6.1.6.4.1 Physical effects
Trawl doors left tracks in sediments that ranged from less than 5 cm deep in sand to 15
cm deep in mud. In mud, fainter marks were also made between the door tracks,
presumably by the footgear. A heavily trawled area had fewer rocks, shell fragments,
and biogenic mounds than a lightly trawled area.
6.1.6.4.2 Biological effects
The heavily trawled area in California had lower densities of large epifaunal species (e.g.,
sea slugs, sea pens, starfish, and anemones) and higher densities of brittle stars and
infaunal nematodes, oligochaetes, and one species of polychaete. There were no
differences in the abundance of molluscs, crustaceans, or nemerteans between the two
areas. However, since this was not a controlled experiment, these differences could not
be attributed to trawling. Single trawl tows in Long Island Sound attracted predators and
suspended epibenthic organisms into the water column.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

267

Affected Environment
Physical and Biological Environment

6.1.6.5

New Bedford Scallop Dredges – Sand

Three studies of the effects of New Bedford scallop dredges on sand substrate were
conducted, one in an estuary on the Maine coast and two on offshore banks in the Gulf of
Maine. Two of them were observational in nature, but did not include any direct
observations of dredge effects. The other one was a controlled experiment conducted in
an unexploited area in which a single dredge was towed repeatedly over the same area of
bottom during a single day. One study examined physical effects and two examined
physical and biological effects. One of them included an analysis of geochemical effects
to disturbed silty-sand sediments.
6.1.6.5.1 Physical effects
Dredging disturbed physical and biogenic benthic features (sand ripples and waves, shell
deposits, and amphipod tube mats, caused the loss of fine surficial sediment, and reduced the food
quality of the remaining sediment. Sediment composition was still altered six months after
dredging, but the food quality of the sediment had recovered by then.

6.1.6.5.2 Biological effects
There were significant reductions in the total number of infaunal individuals in the estuarine
location immediately after dredging and reduced abundances of some species (particularly one
family of polychaetes and photid amphipods), but no change in the number of taxa. Total
abundance was still reduced four months later, but not after six months. The densities of two
megafaunal species (a tube-dwelling polychaete and a burrowing anemone) on an offshore bank
were significantly reduced after commercial scallop vessels had worked the area.

6.1.6.6

New Bedford Scallop Dredges - Mixed Substrates

Three studies have been conducted on mixed glacially-derived substrates. All were done in the
northwest Atlantic (one in the U.S. and two in Canada) at depths of 8 to 50 m. Two observational
studies examined physical effects and one experimental study examined effects on sediment
composition to a sediment depth of 9 cm. The experimental study evaluated the immediate
effects of a single dredge tow. None of these studies evaluated habitat recovery or biological
effects, although one examined geochemical effects.

6.1.6.6.1 Physical effects
Direct observations in dredge tracks in the Gulf of St. Lawrence documented a number of
physical effects to the seafloor, including bottom features produced by dredge skids, rings in the
chain bag, and the tow bar. Gravel fragments were moved and overturned and shells and rocks
were dislodged or plowed along the bottom. Sampling one day after a single dredge tow revealed
that surficial sediments were re-suspended and lost and that the dredge tilled the bottom, burying
surface sediments and organic matter to a depth of 9 cm, increasing the grain size of sediments
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

268

Affected Environment
Physical and Biological Environment

above 5 cm, and disrupting a surface diatom mat. Microbial biomass at the sediment surface
increased as a result of dredging.

6.1.6.7

Hydraulic Clam Dredges – Sand

Six hydraulic dredge studies were conducted in sandy substrates. Five of them examined the
effects of “cage” dredges of the type used in the Northeast region of the U.S. and one examined
the effects of escalator dredges, which affect sandy bottom habitats similarly to “cage” dredges.
Three were performed in North America (two in the U.S. and one in Canada), one in the Adriatic
Sea and two in Scotland. There have been no published studies in North America since 1982.
One of the North American studies was conducted on the U.S. continental shelf at a depth of 37
m and two in near shore waters and depths of 7 – 12 m. The two European studies were done in
even shallower water (1.5 – 7 m). The North American studies were all observational in nature
and the European studies were controlled experiments. One study compared effects in
commercially dredged and un-dredged areas and four were conducted in un-dredged areas. The
sixth study compared infaunal communities in an actively dredged, a recently dredged, and an undredged location off the New Jersey coast. All six studies examined physical and biological
effects of dredging. Recovery was evaluated in four cases for periods ranging from just a few
minutes (sediment plumes) to 11 weeks.

6.1.6.7.1 Physical effects
Hydraulic clam dredges created steep-sided trenches 8-30 cm deep that started deteriorating
immediately after they were formed. Trenches in a shallow, inshore location with strong bottom
currents filled in within 24 hours. Trenches in shallow, protected, coastal lagoons were still
visible two months after they were formed. Hydraulic dredges also fluidized sediments in the
bottom and sides of trenches, created mounds of sediment along the edges of the trench, resuspended and dispersed fine sediment, and caused a re-sorting of sediments that settled back into
trenches. In one study, sediment in the bottom of trenches was initially fluidized to a depth of 30
cm and in the sides of the trench to 15 cm. After 11 weeks, sand in the bottom of the trench was
still fluidized to a depth of 20 cm. Silt clouds only last for a few minutes or hours. Complete
recovery of seafloor topography, sediment grain size, and sediment water content was noted after
40 days in a shallow, sandy environment that was exposed to winter storms.

6.1.6.7.2 Biological effects
Some of the larger infaunal organisms (e.g., polychaetes, crustaceans) retained on the wire mesh
of the conveyor belt used in an escalator dredge, or that drop off the end of the belt, presumably
die. Benthic organisms that are dislodged from the sediment, or damaged by the dredge,
temporarily provided food for foraging fish and invertebrates. Hydraulic dredging caused an
immediate and significant reduction in the total number of infaunal organisms in two studies and
in the number of macrofaunal organisms in a third study. There were also significant reductions
in the number of infaunal species in one case and in the number of macrofaunal species and
biomass in another. In this study, polychaetes were most affected. One study failed to detect any
reduction in the abundance of individual taxa. Evidence from the study conducted off the New
Jersey coast indicated that the number of infaunal organisms and species, and species
composition, were the same in actively dredged and un-dredged locations.
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

269

Affected Environment
Physical and Biological Environment

Recovery times for infaunal communities were estimated in three studies. All of them were
conducted in very shallow (1.5-7 m) water. Total infaunal abundance and species diversity had
fully recovered only five days after dredging in one location where tidal currents reach maximum
speeds of three knots. Some species had recovered after 11 weeks. Total abundance recovered
40 days after dredging in another location exposed to winter storms, when the site was re-visited
for the first time. Total infaunal abundance (but not biomass) recovered within two months at a
protected, commercially exploited site, where recovery was monitored at three-week intervals for
two months, but not at a nearby, unexploited site. The actual recovery time at the exposed subtidal site was probably much quicker than 40 days, the only point in time when the postexperimental observations were made.

6.1.6.8

Hydraulic Clam Dredges - Mixed Substrates

An in situ evaluation of hydraulic dredge effects in sand, mud, and coarse gravel in the midAtlantic Bight indicated that trenches fill in quickly, within several days in fine sediment and
more rapidly than that in coarse gravel. Dredging dislodged benthic organisms from the
sediment, attracting predators.

6.1.7 Description of the Managed Species
The management unit is described in Amendments 7 and 9 to the FMP. One change is
proposed (see below). Life history and habitat characteristics of the stocks managed in this
FMP can be found in the Essential Fish Habitat Source documents (series) published as
NOAA Technical Memorandums and available at
http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/nefsc/habitat/efh/.
Recent revisions to the National Standard guidelines (50 CFR 600.310, published in 74 FR
3178) expanded on the classification of stocks in an FMP. For the Northeast Multispecies
FMP, the stocks identified as the management unit are considered “stocks in the fishery” as
defined by the NSGs. There are no stocks currently identified as “ecosystem component
species,” though this classification may be used in the future.
This action proposes to add Atlantic wolffish (Anarhichas lupus) to the management unit. An
Essential Fish Habitat source document has not yet been prepared for this species. The
following information briefly describes the species characteristics and life history. It was
extracted from working papers prepared for a Data Poor Working Group meeting held in
2008 by the Northeast Fisheries Science Center.
With the addition of Atlantic wolffish, the managed stocks/stocks in the fishery will be:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

GOM cod
GB cod
GOM haddock
GB haddock
CC/GOM yellowtail flounder
GB yellowtail flounder
SNE/MA yellowtail flounder

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

270

Affected Environment
Physical and Biological Environment

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

GOM winter flounder
GB winter flounder
SNE/MA winter flounder
GOM/GB (Northern) windowpane flounder
SNE/MA (Southern) windowpane flounder
Atlantic halibut
Atlantic wolffish
Plaice
Ocean pout
Pollock
Redfish
White hake
Witch flounder

6.1.7.1

Atlantic Wolffish Basic Biology and Ecology

Geographic Range
Atlantic wolffish (Anarhichas lupus) can be found in northern latitudes of the eastern and western
North Atlantic Ocean. In the north and eastern Atlantic they range from eastern Greenland to
Iceland, along northern Europe and the Scandinavian coast extending north and west to the
Barents and White Sea’s. In the northwest Atlantic they are found from Davis Straits off of
western Greenland, along Newfoundland and Labrador and continue southward through the
Canadian Maritime Provinces to Cape Cod, USA. They are found infrequently in southern New
England to New Jersey (Rountree, R.A. 2002). Northeast Fishery Science Centers Bottom Trawl
surveys have only encountered 1 fish southwest of Martha’s Vineyard, Massachusetts since 1963.
Habitats
Atlantic wolffish are a demersal species which prefer complex habitats with large stones and
rocks which provide shelter and nesting sites (Pavlov and Novikov 1993). They are occasionally
seen in soft sediments such as sand or mud substrate and likely forage for food sources in these
habitats (Rountree, R.A. 2002; Falk-Petersen and Hansen 1991). They are believed to be
relatively sedentary and populations localized. Tagging studies from Newfoundland, Greenland
and Iceland indicate that most individuals were recaptured within short distances, ~8km, of the
original tagging sites (Templeman 1984; Riget and Messtorff 1988; Jonsson 1982). Three
significantly longer migrations were reported in Newfoundland ranging from 338 – 853 km
(Templeman 1984).
Atlantic wolffish occupy varying depth ranges across its geographic range. In the Gulf of Maine
they inhabit depths of 40 – 240 m, in Greenland and Newfoundland 0 – 600 m, in Iceland 8 – 450
m and in Norway and the Barents Sea from 10 – 215 m (Riget and Messtorff 1988; Albikovskaya
1982; Templeman 1984; Jonsson 1982; Falk-Petersen and Hansen 1991). In U.S. waters,
abundance appears to be highest in the southwestern portion of the Gulf of Maine, from Jefferies
Ledge to the Great South Channel, corresponding to the 100 m depth contour (Nelson and Ross
1992). Similarly, abundance is highest in the Browns Bank, Scotian shelf and northeast peak of
Georges Bank areas in the Canadian portion of the Gulf of Maine (Nelson and Ross 1992).
Atlantic wolffish in Newfoundland and Icelandic waters were identified as most abundant in
depths 101 – 350 m and 40 - 180 m, respectively (Albikovskaya 1982; Jonsson 1982).

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

271

Affected Environment
Physical and Biological Environment

Temperature ranges where Atlantic wolffish occurs also deviate slightly with geographic region.
Historically in the Gulf of Maine they have been associated with temperatures ranging from 0 –
11.1°C (Bigelow and Schroeder 1953). Bottom temperatures collected from NEFSC bottom
trawl surveys where wolffish were encountered range from 0 – 10°C in spring and 0 – 14.3°C in
fall. In Newfoundland wolffish thermal habitat ranged from -1.9 – 11.0 °C, Norway from -1.3 11 °C and in Iceland and Northern Europe -1.3 – 10.2 °C (Rountree, R.A. 2002; Falk-Petersen
and Hansen 1991; Jonsson 1982). Laboratory studies indicate wolffish can survive a wide span
of temperatures -1.7 – 17.0°C and that feeding is negatively correlated with the higher
temperature extremes (Hagen and Mann 1992; King et al. 1989).
Reproduction
In general Atlantic wolffish are solitary in habit, except during mating season when bonded pairs
form in spring/summer depending on geographic location (Rountree, R.A. 2002; Keats et al.
1985; Pavlov and Novikov 1993). Spawning is believed to occur in September through October
in the Gulf of Maine but is likely to depend on temperature and possibly photoperiod (Rountree,
R.A. 2002; Pavlov and Moksness 1994). Spawning is reported to occur from August –
September in Nova Scotia, during autumn in Newfoundland, September – October in Iceland,
July – October in Norway, and late summer – early autumn in the White Sea (Keats et al. 1985;
Templeman 1986; Jonsson 1982; Falk-Petersen and Hansen 1991; Pavlov and Novikov 1993). In
the Gulf of Maine there is weak indication of a seasonal migration as wolffish may travel from
shallow to deep in autumn and then deep to shallow in spring (Nelson and Ross 1992). Similar
migrations occur in Iceland and the White Sea where wolffish migrate to colder temperatures
before the spawning season (Pavlov and Novikov 1993; Jonsson 1982). Atlantic wolffish have
the lowest fecundity compared to their relatives, the spotted wolffish (Anarhichas minor) and the
northern wolffish (Anarhichas denticulus). Fecundity is related to fish size and body mass in this
species and increases exponentially with length. Newfoundland mean fecundity estimates,
combined from several NAFO statistical areas, range from 2,440 eggs at 40 cm to 35,320 eggs at
120 cm (Templeman 1986). In Norway a female at 60 cm produces approximately 5,000 eggs
while a female 80-90 cm will lay 12,000 eggs (Falk-Petersen and Hansen 1991). Potential
fecundity of wolffish in Iceland was measured between 400 and 16,000 eggs for fish at lengths of
25 and 83 cm respectively (Gunnarsson et al. 2006). Mature eggs are large measuring 5.5 – 6.8
mm in diameter (Rountree, R.A. 2002). Male Atlantic wolffish have small testes and produce
small amounts of sperm peaking during late summer and autumn. These data along with
morphological development of a papilla on the urogenital pore during spawning suggest internal
fertilization (Pavlov and Novikov 1993; Pavlov and Moksness 1994, Johannessen et at. 1993).
Males have been observed guarding egg clusters for several months but it is not certain if they
continue until hatching (Keats et al. 1985; Rountree, R.A. 2002). Hatching may take 3 to 9
months depending on temperature (Rountree, R.A. 2002). There is some anecdotal information
from Canadian scientists that indicate Atlantic wolffish may lay eggs in various types of habitat
(rather than just rocky areas), and that the eggs may occasionally be caught in mobile gear (Chad
Keith, NEFSC, pers. comm.)
Food Habits
The diet of Gulf of Maine and Georges Bank wolffish consist primarily of bivalves, gastropods,
decapods and echinoderms (Nelson and Ross 1992). Wolffish possess specialized teeth,
including protruding canine tusks (hence its name) and large rounded molars, which allow for
removal of organisms from the sea floor and crushing of hard shelled prey (Rountree, R.A. 2002).
Due to diet teeth are replaced annually (Albikovskaya 1983; Collete and Klein-MacPhee 2002).
Fish have also been reported as an important food source in other regions along with amphipods
and euphausiid shrimp for smaller individuals, 1 – 10 cm (Rountree, R.A. 2002; Albikovskaya
1983; Bowman et al. 2000). Travel between shelters and feeding grounds occurs during feeding
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

272

Affected Environment
Physical and Biological Environment

periods as evidenced by crushed shells and debris observed in the vicinity of occupied shelters
(Rountree, R.A. 2002; Pavlov and Novikov 1993). Fasting does occur for several months while
replacing teeth, spawning and nest guarding occurs (Rountree, R.A. 2002).
Size
In the Gulf of Maine and Georges Bank regions individuals may attain lengths of 150 cm and
weights of 18 kg (Goode 1884; Idoine 1998). Northeast Fishery Science Center bottom trawl
surveys have captured animals ranging in size from 3 – 137 cm in spring and 4 – 120 cm in fall
and with a maximum weight of 11.77 kg.
Age and Growth
Mean length at age for Atlantic wolffish in the Gulf of Maine was determined to be 22 years at 98
cm and 0 years at 4 cm (Nelson and Ross 1992). Fish over 100 cm were not sampled extensively
in this study, 10 fish from 100-118 cm. Ages in the Gulf of Maine are comparable to wolffish
ages in other regions, such as 21 years in east Iceland and 23 years in Norway (Gunnarsson et al.
2006; Falk-Petersen and Hansen 1991). Age 0 fish grow quickly in Icelandic waters and may
reach 10.5 cm in the first year (Jonsson 1982). Gulf of Maine wolffish have faster growth rates
than fish in Iceland but grow fastest in the North Sea region (Nelson and Ross 1992; Liao and
Lucas 2000). Growth in the Gulf of Maine for both male and female wolffish was best estimated
using a Gompertz growth function, L∞ = 98.9 cm, K = 0.22 and t0 = 4.74 (Nelson and Ross
1992). Female growth from Iceland has been modeled using a logistic growth function and
coefficients estimated using non-linear optimization (Gauss-Newton method), results from the
east and west regions were: L∞ = 90.919, K = 0.230 and t0 = 8.837 and L∞ = 70.046, K = 0.378
and t0 = 4.691, respectively (Gunnarsson et al. 2006). Von Bertalanffy growth parameters for the
North Sea population of wolffish were L∞ = 111.2, K = 0.12 and t0 = -0.43 and L∞ = 115.1, K =
0.11 and t0 = -0.39, for males and females respectively (Liao and Lucas 2000).
Maturity
In the Gulf of Maine individuals are believed to reach maturity by age 5-6 when they reach
approximately 47 cm total length (Nelson and Ross 1992; Templeman 1986). Size at fifty
percent maturity (L50) of females varies latitudinally which is likely due to the effects of
temperature. Templeman (1986) showed that northern fish mature at smaller sizes than faster
growing southern fish in Newfoundland. L50 was reported as 51.4 cm in the northern area, 61.0
cm in the intermediate region and 68.2 cm in the south. In a study somewhat contradictory to
Templeman 1986, Atlantic wolffish in east Iceland, where water temperatures are colder, had
larger L50 values than fish in the relatively warmer waters of east Iceland (Gunnarsson et al.
2006). Authors indicate that maturity may be difficult to determine using visual methods in
females because of large eggs size in this species. Second generation eggs are visible in young,
immature fish when the reach the cortical alveolus stage but they may not be able to spawn for
several more years (Gunnarsson et al. 2006; Templeman 1986).
A logistic maturity ogive was developed for female Atlantic wolffish based on spring and fall
NEFSC survey. L50 was estimated at approximately 35 cm from these data. This L50 for female
wolffish is lower than estimates reported in Newfoundland and Iceland where females containing
second generation eggs were considered immature (Templeman 1986; Gunnarsson et al. 2006).
NEFSC maturity data is based on visual inspection of the reproductive organs. Fish are classified
into 1 of 7 stages of maturity (Burnett et al 1989). Fish classifications for females include
immature, developing, ripe, eyed (unique for redfish), ripe and running, spent and resting. This
analysis considered fish that were in the developing through resting stages as a mature and
immature were those fish that contained no visible eggs. Size at maturity may be difficult to
interpret for wolffish from these data as they may have an additional developing stage, or a set of
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

273

Affected Environment
Physical and Biological Environment

second generation eggs which may last for several years, where fish are reproductively immature
(Gunnarsson et al. 2006). These immature fish would likely be classified as developing in
NEFSC surveys and were considered mature in the ogive thereby reducing the size at 50%
mature.

6.1.8 Regulated Groundfish Stock Status
The Groundfish Assessment Review Meeting (GARM) conducted during October
2007 – August 2008 provide benchmark assessments for the 19 groundfish stocks managed under
the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan. The GARM III process involved in-depth
reviews of the data, models, biological reference points, and assessments of each of the 19
groundfish stocks. This section summarizes the stock status in terms of biomass (B) or spawning
stock biomass (SSB) and fishing mortality (F) through 2007 as reported in NEFSC (2008).
The GARM III results show which groundfish stocks were overfished or experiencing overfishing
in 2007 (Table 1). A total of 13 stocks were overfished (B less than ½ BMSY) while 6 stocks were
not overfished. Similarly, a total of 13 stocks were experiencing overfishing (F greater than FMSY)
while 6 stocks were not experiencing overfishing. Eleven of the stocks are both overfished and
experiencing overfishing. Pollock, witch flounder, Georges Bank (GB) winter flounder, Gulf of
Maine (GOM) winter flounder and northern windowpane have deteriorated in status, while GOM
cod has improved. GOM cod is still experiencing overfishing but is no longer overfished. Four
stocks (redfish, American plaice, GB haddock, and GOM haddock) were classified as not
overfished and not experiencing overfishing. Note the GOM winter flounder status determination
was uncertain and judged as likely overfished and probably experience overfishing. In addition to
GARM III, in fall 2008 the NDWG met and assessed Atlantic wolffish. The stock was
determined to be overfished but the stock’s status with respect to overfishing is uncertain.
Of the 14 groundfish stocks assessed in GARM III using an analytical assessment model,
7 stocks exhibited retrospective patterns that were considered severe enough that an
adjustment to the population numbers and fishing mortality in 2007 was deemed necessary before
determining current stock status and subsequently conducting projections. Retrospective pattern
adjustments were done one of two ways. Either a split in the survey time series during the mid
1990s or an adjustment to the population numbers at age in the terminal year based upon a
measure of the age-specific retrospective pattern during the past seven years. Only for American
plaice and redfish were the population numbers adjusted. For the other five stocks (GB cod, GB
yellowtail, witch flounder, GOM winter flounder, SNE winter flounder) the split survey was
used. The remaining seven stocks were judge to have a mild retrospective pattern that did not
require an adjustment.
Since GARM II, many stocks have exhibited long term declines in weights-at-age.
Age-specific fishery selectivity has also shifted in many stocks to older age groups due to a
combination of reduced growth, fishery management measures, and changing fishing practices.
These trends were incorporated into the updated biological reference points for the 19 groundfish
stocks, and as a consequence many of the newly-estimated biomass reference points are now
lower and the fishing mortality reference points higher than those estimated in GARM II.
However, a direct one-to-one comparison between the old and new BRPs is inappropriate because
of these changes in weights and partial recruitment at age.
Analyses from an ecosystem basis suggest current biomass management targets (BMSYs) for
GARM stocks are reasonable. The current targets compare favorably with the results of recent
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

274

Affected Environment
Physical and Biological Environment

and historical studies in the region and are also in general agreement with results of many studies
for other worldwide ecosystems. New summed BRPs for the GARM stocks are similar to BRPs
from an aggregate surplus production model for these stocks. Aggregate model results suggest
that the overall fishing mortality rate should be relatively low (F=0.15) to obtain MSY for this
complex of GARM stocks.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

275

Affected Environment
Physical and Biological Environment

Table 47 - Summary of groundfish stock status in 2007
Stock
Georges Bank cod
Gulf of Maine cod
Georges Bank haddock
Gulf of Maine haddock
Georges bank Yellowtail
Southern New England-Mid Atlantic Yellowtail
Cape Cod-Gulf of Maine yellowtail
American plaice
Witch flounder
Georges Bank winter flounder
Gulf of Maine winter flounder
Southern New England-Mid-Atlantic winter flounder
Acadian redfish
white hake
pollock 1,4
northern windowpane 1
southern windowpane 1
ocean pout 1
Atlantic halibut
1
2
3
4

Estimated F
in 2007
0.303
0.456
0.229
0.346
0.289
0.413
0.414
0.094
0.292
0.282
0.417
0.649
0.007
0.150
2
10.975
1.96
1.85
0.38
0.065

Fmsy
0.247
0.237
0.350
0.430
0.254
0.254
0.239
0.190
0.200
0.260
0.283
0.248
0.038
0.125
5.66
0.50
1.47
0.76
0.073

Percent
F Reduction
to Fmsy
18%
48%
none
none
12%
38%
42%
none
32%
8%
32%
62%
none
17%
48%
74%
21%
none
none

Biomass
in 2007
17,672
33,878
315,975
5,850
9,527
3,508
1,922
11,106
3,434
4,964
1,100
3,368
172,342
19,800
3
0.754
3
0.24
3
0.19
0.48
1,300

Bmsy
148,084
58,248
158,873
5,900
43,200
27,400
7,790
21,940
11,447
16,000
3,792
38,761
271,000
56,254
2
1.4
0.34
4.94
49,000

Percent change
in Biomass
to achieve Bmsy
738%
72%
above Bmsy
1%
353%
681%
305%
98%
233%
222%
245%
1051%
57%
184%
165%
483%
79%
929%
3669%

MSY
31,159
10,014
32,746
1,360
9,400
6,100
1,720
4,011
2,352
3,500
917
9,742
10,139
5,800
11,320
700
500
3,754
3,500

2007
Overfished
Status
Overfished
Not Overfished
Not Overfished
Not Overfished
Overfished
Overfished
Overfished
Not Overfished
Overfished
Overfished
Overfished
Overfished
Not Overfished
Overfished
Not Overfished
Overfished
Not Overfished
Overfished
Overfished

Fmsy and Bmsy index proxies are listed for pollock, ocean pout, southern and northern windowpane.
GARM III values are equal to the catch in 2007 / average 2006 & 2007 indices (Updated relative F using the average of 2006, 2007 & 2008 is 10.46).
Index point estimates are in the table. Status determination is made using the 3 year average (pollock = 0.90, N windowpane = 0.53, S windowpane = 0.21 kg / tow ).
Status determination for amendment 16 will be based on calculations including the 2008 fall survey index.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

276

2007
Overfishing
Status
Overfishing
Overfishing
No Overfishing
No Overfishing
Overfishing
Overfishing
Overfishing
No Overfishing
Overfishing
Overfishing
Overfishing
Overfishing
No Overfishing
Overfishing
Overfishing
Overfishing
Overfishing
No Overfishing
No Overfishing

Affected Environment
Physical and Biological Environment

A. Georges Bank cod was overfished and was experiencing overfishing in 2007.
Spawning biomass has remained low since 1994. Fishing mortality has been decreasing since
2004. A split in the survey time series was used to adjust for the retrospective pattern.
Figure 24 - Georges Bank cod spawning stock biomass (SSB) and fishing mortality (F) estimates
during 1978-2007 reported in GARM III along with 80% confidence intervals for 2007 estimates.

Georges Bank Cod
GARM III Summary Stock Status
160000
140000

SSBMSY

SSB (mt)

120000
100000
80000
60000
40000
20000
0
1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2000

2005

2010

Year

1.4
1.2
1.0

0.8
0.6
0.4

FMSY

0.2
0.0
1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

Year

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

277

Affected Environment
Physical and Biological Environment

B. Georges Bank haddock was not overfished and was not experiencing overfishing in 2007.
Georges Bank haddock has been rebuilt to about twice Bmsy. Spawning biomass has increased
since 1993. Fishing mortality has remained below Fmsy since 1995. The partial recruited strong
2003 year class made up most of the catch in 2007. No retrospective adjustment was made for
Georges Bank haddock.
Figure 25 - Georges Bank haddock spawning stock biomass (SSB) and fishing mortality (F)
estimates during 1931-2007 reported in GARM III along with 80% confidence intervals for 2007
estimates.

Georges Bank Haddock
GARM III Summary Stock Status
500000

SSB (mt)

400000
300000
200000

SSBMSY

100000
0
1930

1940

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

Year

1.2
1.0

0.8
0.6

FMSY

0.4
0.2
0.0
1930

1940

1950

1960

1970

1980

Year

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

278

1990

2000

2010

Affected Environment
Physical and Biological Environment

C. Georges Bank yellowtail flounder was overfished and was experiencing overfishing in 2007.
Spawning biomass has been relatively low since 1984. There has been a slight increase in
spawning biomass since the late 1980s. Fishing mortality has had a decreasing trend since 2004.
A split in the survey time series was used to adjust for the retrospective pattern.
Figure 26 - Georges Bank yellowtail flounder spawning stock biomass (SSB) and fishing mortality (F)
estimates during 1973-2007 reported in GARM III along with 80% confidence intervals for 2007
estimates.

Georges Bank Yellowtail
GARM III Summary Stock Status
50000

SSBMSY

SSB (mt)

40000
30000
20000
10000
0
1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

1995

2000

2005

2010

Year

2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4

1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4

FMSY

0.2
0.0
1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

Year

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

279

Affected Environment
Physical and Biological Environment

D. Southern New England/Mid-Atlantic yellowtail flounder was overfished and was experiencing
overfishing in 2007. Spawning biomass has been low since 1991. There are some signs of
rebuilding from a strong 2005 year class. Fishing mortality has had a decreasing trend since 2001
but remains slightly above FMSY. No retrospective adjustment was made for SNE/Mid-Atlantic
yellowtail flounder.
Figure 27 - Southern New England/Mid-Atlantic yellowtail flounder spawning stock biomass (SSB)
and fishing mortality (F) estimates during 1973-2007 reported in GARM III along with 80%
confidence intervals for 2007 estimates.

Southern New England Mid-Atlantic Yellowtail
GARM III Summary Stock Status
40000

SSBMSY

SSB (mt)

30000

20000

10000

0
1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

1995

2000

2005

2010

Year

3.5
3.0
2.5

2.0
1.5
1.0

FMSY

0.5
0.0
1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

Year

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

280

Affected Environment
Physical and Biological Environment

E. Cape Cod/Gulf of Maine yellowtail flounder was overfished and was experiencing overfishing
in 2007. Spawning biomass been relatively low over the time series. There appears to be a
moderately strong 2005 year class. Fishing mortality has decreased since 2004. No retrospective
adjustment was made for Cape Cod/Gulf of Maine yellowtail flounder.
Figure 28 - Cape Cod/Gulf of Maine yellowtail flounder spawning stock biomass (SSB) and fishing
mortality (F) estimates during 1985-2007 reported in GARM III along with 80% confidence intervals
for 2007 estimates.

Cape Cod Gulf of Maine Yellowtail
GARM III Summary Stock Status
10000

SSBMSY

SSB (mt)

8000
6000
4000
2000
0
1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2000

2005

2010

Year

3.0
2.5

2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5

FMSY

0.0
1980

1985

1990

1995

Year

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

281

Affected Environment
Physical and Biological Environment

F. Gulf of Maine cod was not overfished but was experiencing overfishing in 2007. Spawning
biomass increased in 2006 and 2007. An above average 2005 year class was estimated. Fishing
mortality decreased from 1994 to 2000 but has remained above Fmsy since then. No retrospective
adjustment was made for Gulf of Maine Cod.
Figure 29 - Gulf of Maine cod spawning stock biomass (SSB) and fishing mortality (F) estimates
during 1982-2007 using GARM III data along with 80% confidence intervals for 2007 estimates.

Gulf of Maine Cod
GARM III Summary Stock Status
70000

SSBMSY

60000

SSB (mt)

50000
40000
30000
20000
10000
0
1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2000

2005

2010

Year

1.6
1.4
1.2

1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4

FMSY

0.2
0.0
1980

1985

1990

1995

Year

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

282

Affected Environment
Physical and Biological Environment

G. Witch flounder was overfished and was experiencing overfishing in 2007. Spawning biomass
has declined since 2001 to a record low in 2007. Fishing mortality has decreased since 2004. A
split in the survey time series was used to adjust for the retrospective pattern.

Figure 30 - Witch flounder spawning stock biomass (SSB) and fishing mortality (F) estimates during
1982-2007 reported in GARM III along with 80% confidence intervals for 2007 estimates.

Witch Flounder
GARM III Summary Stock Status
18000
16000

SSB (mt)

14000

SSBMSY

12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2000

2005

2010

Year

1.2
1.0

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2

FMSY

0.0
1980

1985

1990

1995

Year

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

283

Affected Environment
Physical and Biological Environment

H. American plaice was not overfished and was not experiencing overfishing in 2007. Spawning
biomass has been low with a slight increasing trend since 1986. Fishing mortality has had a
decreasing trend since 1995. Terminal year population numbers and fishing mortality were
adjusted with Mohn’s rho estimates.
Figure 31 - American plaice spawning stock biomass (SSB) and fishing mortality (F) estimates during
1980-2007 reported in GARM III along with 80% confidence intervals for 2007 estimates. Mohn’s
rho adjusted SSB and F are shown in the terminal year with a green diamond.

Gulf of Maine/Georges Bank American Plaice
GARM III Summary Stock Status
40000
35000

SSB (mt)

30000

SSBMSY

25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2000

2005

2010

Year

1.0
0.8

0.6
0.4
0.2

FMSY

0.0
1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

Year

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

284

Affected Environment
Physical and Biological Environment

I. Gulf of Maine winter flounder status determination is unknown. Exact status determination
was unknown due to the severity of the retrospective pattern and the magnitude of the change
with a retrospective adjustment. However SSB appears to be well below Bmsy and fishing
mortality is likely above Fmsy.
Figure 32 - Gulf of Maine winter flounder spawning stock biomass (SSB) and fishing mortality (F)
estimates during 1982-2007 reported in GARM III along with 80% confidence intervals for 2007
estimates from the split survey run. This assessment was not accepted.

Gulf of Maine Winter Flounder
GARM III Summary Stock Status
6000

SSB (mt)

5000

SSBMSY

4000
3000
2000
1000
0
1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2000

2005

2010

Year

2.5
2.0

1.5
1.0
0.5

FMSY

0.0
1980

1985

1990

1995

Year

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

285

Affected Environment
Physical and Biological Environment

J. Southern New England/Mid-Atlantic winter flounder was overfished and was experiencing
overfishing in 2007. Spawning biomass has been very low since the late-1980s. Fishing
mortality has been declining since 1993 but remain well above Fmsy. A split in the survey time
series was used to adjust for the retrospective pattern.
Figure 33 - Southern New England/Mid-Atlantic winter flounder spawning stock biomass (SSB) and
fishing mortality (F) estimates during 1981-2007 reported in GARM III along with 80% confidence
intervals for 2007 estimates.

Southern New England Mid-Atlantic Winter Flounder
GARM III Summary Stock Status
50000

SSBMSY

SSB (mt)

40000
30000
20000
10000
0
1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2000

2005

2010

Year

1.6
1.4
1.2

1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2

FMSY

0.0
1980

1985

1990

1995

Year

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

286

Affected Environment
Physical and Biological Environment

K. Georges Bank winter flounder was overfished and was experiencing overfishing in 2007.
Spawning Biomass has declined since 2000. Fishing mortality declined from 2003 but was just
above Fmsy in 2007. No retrospective adjustment was made for Georges Bank winter flounder.
Figure 34 - Georges Bank winter flounder spawning stock biomass (B) and fishing mortality (F)
estimates during 1982-2007 reported in GARM III along with 80% confidence intervals for 2007
estimates.

Georges Bank Winter Flounder
GARM III Summary Stock Status
18000

SSBMSY

16000

SSB (mt)

14000
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2000

2005

2010

Year

1.4
1.2
1.0

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2

FMSY

0.0
1980

1985

1990

1995

Year

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

287

Affected Environment
Physical and Biological Environment

L. White hake was overfished and was experiencing overfishing in 2007. Biomass increased
slightly during 2000-2007. Fishing mortality has declined since 2003. No retrospective
adjustment was made for white hake.
Figure 35 - Georges Bank/Gulf of Maine white hake spawning stock biomass (SSB) and fishing
mortality rate (F) during 1963-2007 reported in GARM III.

Gulf of Maine Georges Bank White Hake
GARM III Summary Stock Status
70000

SSBMSY

60000

SSB (mt)

50000
40000
30000
20000
10000
0
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Year

0.7
0.6
0.5

0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1

FMSY

0.0
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Year

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

288

Affected Environment
Physical and Biological Environment

M. Pollock was overfished and was experiencing overfishing in 2008. Biomass index has
decreased since 2005. Biomass status determination is made using the three year moving average
of the biomass index. Relative Fishing mortality has increased since 2002.
Figure 36 - Georges Bank/Gulf of Maine pollock biomass index (B) and relative exploitation rate (F)
during 1963-2008 based on the fall survey index. Status determination is based on the three year
average plotted with a green diamond.

Georges Bank Gulf of Maine Pollock
GARM III Summary Stock Status

Biomass Index (kg/tow)

10
8
6
4

BMSY
2
0
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Relative F Proxy

Year

22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8

FMSY

6
4
2
0
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Year

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

289

Affected Environment
Physical and Biological Environment

N. Acadian redfish was not overfished and was not experiencing overfishing in 2007. Spawning
biomass has increased substantially since the mid-1990s. Fishing mortality has been below Fmsy
since 1997. Terminal year population numbers and fishing mortality were adjusted with Mohn’s
rho estimates.
Figure 37 - Gulf of Maine/Georges Bank Acadian redfish spawning stock biomass (SSB) and fishing
mortality (F) estimates during 1913-2007 reported in GARM III along with 80% confidence intervals
for 2007 estimates. Mohn’s rho adjusted SSB and F are shown in the terminal year with a green
diamond.

Gulf of Maine Georges Bank Acadian Redfish
GARM III Summary Stock Status
700000
600000

SSB (mt)

500000
400000

SSBMSY

300000
200000
100000

0
1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Year

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

FMSY
0.0
1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Year

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

290

Affected Environment
Physical and Biological Environment

O. Ocean pout was overfished and was not experiencing overfishing in 2007. Biomass has had a
decreasing trend since 2002. Fishing mortality has been well below Fmsy since 1992. There are no
signs of stock rebuilding despite that fishing mortality is relatively low.
Figure 38 - Ocean pout biomass index (B) and relative exploitation rate (F) during 1968-2007
reported in GARM III.

Biomass Index (3-yr avg kg / tow)

Ocean Pout
GARM III Summary Stock Status
7
6

BMSY

5
4
3
2
1
0
1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

1995

2000

2005

2010

Year

Relative F Proxy

5
4
3
2
1

FMSY

0
1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

Year

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

291

Affected Environment
Physical and Biological Environment

P. Northern windowpane flounder was overfished and was experiencing overfishing in 2007.
Biomass has decreased since 2001. Fishing mortality has been increasing since 2002.
Figure 39 - Gulf of Maine/Georges Bank windowpane flounder biomass index (B) and relative
exploitation rate (F) during 1975-2007 reported in GARM III. Biomass status determination is based
on the three year average plotted with a green diamond.

Gulf of Maine Georges Bank Windowpane Flounder
GARM III Summary Stock Status

Biomass Index (kg/tow)

3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0

BMSY

1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

1995

2000

2005

2010

Year

Relative F Proxy

FMSY
0
1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

Year

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

292

Affected Environment
Physical and Biological Environment

Q. Southern windowpane flounder was not overfished and was experiencing overfishing in 2007.
Biomass has been low and fluctuated without trend since the late-1980s. The relative F has
increased above Fmsy in 2006 and 2007.
Figure 40 - Southern New England/Mid-Atlantic windowpane flounder biomass index (B) and
relative exploitation rate (F) during 1975-2007 reported in GARM III. Biomass status determination
is based on the three year average plotted with a green diamond.

Southern New England Mid-Atlantic Bight Windowpane Flounder
GARM III Summary Stock Status

Biomass Index (kg/tow)

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

BMSY

0.0
1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

1995

2000

2005

2010

Year

Relative F Proxy

FMSY
0
1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

Year

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

293

Affected Environment
Physical and Biological Environment

R. Gulf of Maine haddock was not overfished and was not experiencing overfishing in 2007.
Spawning biomass increased from 1989 to 2002 and has decreased since then. Fishing mortality
has been below Fmsy since 1992. No retrospective adjustment was made for Gulf of Maine
haddock.

Figure 41 - Gulf of Maine haddock spawning stock biomass (SSB) and fishing mortality (F) during
1977-2007 reported in GARM III along with 80% confidence intervals for 2007 estimates.

Gulf of Maine Haddock
GARM III Summary Stock Status
18000
16000

SSB (mt)

14000
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000

SSBMSY

2000
0
1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2000

2005

2010

Year

2.5
2.0

1.5
1.0
0.5

FMSY
0.0
1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

Year

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

294

Affected Environment
Physical and Biological Environment

S. Atlantic halibut was overfished and was not experiencing overfishing in 2007. Biomass has
been stable and well below Bmsy since the late 1800s. Fishing mortality has been below Fmsy since
1995.
Figure 42 - Atlantic halibut biomass (B) and fishing mortality rate (F) during 1800-2007 reported in
GARM III.

Atlantic Halibut
GARM III Summary Stock Status
120000

Biomass (mt)

100000
80000
60000

BMSY

40000
20000
0
1800 1820 1840 1860 1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000

Year

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

FMSY
0.0
1800 1820 1840 1860 1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000

Year

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

295

Affected Environment
Physical and Biological Environment

6.1.9 Non-Groundfish Stock Status
6.1.9.1

Monkfish

Monkfish on GB tend to occur in the deeper waters (the canyon areas) during the winter months.
The Monkfish FMP uses the NMFS fall bottom trawl survey to determine monkfish stock status
(biomass) relative to management reference points. Based on the 2007 monkfish stock
assessment (Northeast Data Poor Stocks Working Group 2007), which used a new method for
determining stock status, and recommended revised biological reference points, the northern and
southern stock components are both above the minimum biomass threshold, and are therefore not
overfished. This is a change from 2005 – 2006, when both stocks were considered overfished.
The Councils are currently in the process of updating the biological reference points in the
Monkfish FMP, through Framework Adjustment 5, to be consistent with this assessment.

6.1.9.2

Dogfish

The Northwest Atlantic spiny dogfish stock is no longer classified as overfished, nor is
overfishing occurring. Short term forecasts of spiny dogfish biomass (mt) are influenced by the
current biomass and size structure of the population. Biomass of mature female spiny dogfish is
expected to continue increasing through 2008 and 2009 as fish <80cm grow into mature size
ranges. Subsequently, the biomass should decline due to the low number of recruits that were
born during 1997-2003. If recruitment returns to levels consistent with expected size-specific
reproduction, the biomass should begin to rebound again by 2015 (NMFS, 43rd SAW).

6.1.9.3

Skates

There are seven skate species managed under the NE Skate Complex FMP (Skate FMP). Three
species commonly occur on GB: winter, little, and barndoor skates. Two species are more
common in the GOM: thorny and smooth skates. The remaining two species in the complex,
clearnose and rosette skates, are mainly distributed in Mid-Atlantic waters. Catches of these
species are largely interrelated with the NE multispecies, monkfish, and scallop fisheries. The
Skate FMP was implemented in 2003, after it was determined that barndoor, thorny, and smooth
skates were overfished. Possession of these species is currently prohibited. The NMFS bottom
trawl survey is used to monitor stock status, and a stock assessment was completed for all seven
species in the complex in 2006 (SAW 44). Winter skate was determined to be overfished, and an
amendment to the Skate FMP is under development to rebuild this, and other overfished skate
stocks.
The stock status of the skate complex is updated annually, and the most recent update (June 2008)
determined the following: Winter, thorny, and smooth skates are in an overfished condition.
Thorny skate is also subject to overfishing, despite a prohibition on possession since 2003.
Barndoor skate is not overfished and is rebuilding toward its biomass target. Little skate is not
overfished, although it is close to the overfished biomass threshold. Clearnose and rosette skates
are not overfished or experiencing overfishing.

6.1.10 Marine Mammals and Protected Species
There are numerous species that inhabit the environment within the Northeast Multispecies FMP
management unit, and that therefore potentially occur in the operations area of the groundfish
fishery, that are afforded protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA; i.e., for
those designated as threatened or endangered) and/or the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

296

Affected Environment
Physical and Biological Environment

(MMPA), and are under NMFS’ jurisdiction. Fifteen species are classified as endangered or
threatened under the ESA, while the remainder are protected by the provisions of the MMPA.

6.1.10.1 Species Present in the Area
Table 48 lists the species, protected either by the ESA, the MMPA, or both, may be found in the
environment that would be utilized by the groundfish fishery.
Table 48 - Species protected under the Endangered Species Act and Marine Mammal Protection Act
that may occur in the operations area for the groundfish fishery.
Species

Status

Cetaceans

North Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena glacialis)

Endangered

Humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae)

Endangered

Fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus)

Endangered

Sei whale (Balaenoptera borealis)

Endangered

Blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus)

Endangered

Sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus

Endangered

Minke whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata)

Protected

Northern bottlenose whale (Hyperoodon ampullatus)

Protected

Beaked whale (Ziphius and Mesoplodon spp.)

Protected

Pygmy or dwarf sperm whale (Kogia spp.)

Protected

Pilot whale (Globicephala spp.)

Protected

False killer whale (Pseudorca crassidens)

Protected

Melonheaded whale (Peponocephala electra)

Protected

Rough-toothed dolphin (Steno bredanensis)

Protected

Risso's dolphin (Grampus griseus)

Protected

White-sided dolphin (Lagenorhynchus acutus)

Protected

Common dolphin (Delphinus delphis)

Protected

Spotted and striped dolphins (Stenella spp.)

Protected

Bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus)

Protected

White-beaked dolphin (Lagenorhynchus albirostris)

Protected

Harbor Porpoise (Phocoena phocoena)

Protected

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

297

Affected Environment
Physical and Biological Environment

Table 48 (cont.)
Species

Status

Sea Turtles

Hawksbill sea turtle (Eretmochelys imbricate)

Endangered

Leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea)

Endangered

Kemp's ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kempii)

Endangered

Green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas)

Endangeredb

Loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta)

Threatened

Fish

Shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum)

Endangered

Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar)

Endangered

Pinnipeds

Harbor seal (Phoca vitulina)

Protected

Gray seal (Halichoerus grypus)

Protected

Harp seal (Pagophilus groenlandicus)

Protected

Hooded seal (Cystophora cristata)

Protected

Note:
a

Bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus), Western North Atlantic coastal stock is listed as
depleted.

Green turtles in U.S. waters are listed as threatened except for the Florida breeding
population which is listed as endangered. Due to the inability to distinguish between these
populations away from the nesting beach, green turtles are considered endangered wherever
occurring in U.S. waters.

Two additional species of pinnipeds: Ringed seal (Phoca hispida) and the Bearded seal
(Erignathus barbatus) are listed as candidate species under the ESA. The Northeastern U.S. is at
the southern tip of the habitat range for both of these species. These species are rarely sighted off
the northeastern U.S., although a few stranding records have been recorded in the Northeast
Region, but sightings are rare in the Northeast Atlantic.
On January 5, 2009, NMFS announced a 90-day finding for a petition, submitted on October 1,
2008, to list Atlantic wolffish (Anarhichas lupus) as endangered or threatened under the ESA, and
to request information to determine if the petition action is warranted (74 Federal Register 249).
On February 10, 2009, the Council voted to include wolffish in the multispecies management
unit, impose a prohibition on retention of wolffish by commercial and (private, party and charter)
recreational fishermen, and to designate wolffish EFH. If NMFS finds that the requested petition
action may be warranted, the Secretary of Commerce (who has delegated the authority to the
NOAA Assistant Administrator for Fisheries) will conduct a status review and make a finding
within 12 months of the receipt of the petition. NMFS has commenced the status review
procedure. Thus, the outcome of the potential listing under the ESA is pending the final decision,
expected by the end of 2009.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

298

Affected Environment
Physical and Biological Environment

6.1.10.2 Species Potentially Affected
It is expected that the sea turtle, cetacean, and pinniped species discussed below have the
potential to be affected by the operation of the multispecies fishery, and thus the groundfish
fishery. Background information on the range-wide status of sea turtle and marine mammal
species that occur in the area and are known or suspected of interacting with fishing gear
(demersal gear including trawls, gillnets, and longline types) can be found in a number of
published documents. These include sea turtle status reviews and biological reports (NMFS and
USFWS 1995; Marine Turtle Expert Working Group (TEWG) 1998, 2000; NMFS and USFWS
2007a, 2007b; Leatherback TEWG 2007), recovery plans for ESA-listed cetaceans and sea turtles
(NMFS 1991, 2005; NMFS and USFWS 1991a, 1991b; NMFS and USFWS 1992), the marine
mammal stock assessment reports (e.g., Waring et al. 2006; 2007), and other publications (e.g.,
Clapham et al. 1999, Perry et al. 1999, Best et al. 2001, Perrin et al. 2002).

6.1.10.3 Sea Turtles
Loggerhead, leatherback, Kemp’s ridley, and green sea turtles occur seasonally in southern New
England and Mid-Atlantic continental shelf waters north of Cape Hatteras, North Carolina. In
general, turtles move up the coast from southern wintering areas as water temperatures warm in
the spring (James et al. 2005, Morreale and Standora 2005, Braun-McNeill and Epperly 2004,
Morreale and Standora 1998, Musick and Limpus 1997, Shoop and Kenney 1992, Keinath et al.
1987). The trend is reversed in the fall as water temperatures cool. By December, turtles have
passed Cape Hatteras, returning to more southern waters for the winter (James et al. 2005,
Morreale and Standora 2005, Braun-McNeill and Epperly 2004, Morreale and Standora 1998,
Musick and Limpus 1997, Shoop and Kenney 1992, Keinath et al. 1987). Hard-shelled species
are typically observed as far north as Cape Cod whereas the more cold-tolerant leatherbacks are
observed in more northern Gulf of Maine waters in the summer and fall (Shoop and Kenney
1992, STSSN database http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/seaturtleSTSSN.jsp).
In general, sea turtles are a long-lived species and reach sexual maturity relatively late (NMFS
SEFSC 2001; NMFS and USFWS 2007a, 2007b, 2007c, 2007d). Sea turtles are injured and
killed by numerous human activities (NRC 1990; NMFS and USFWS 2007a, 2007b, 2007c,
2007d). Nest count data are a valuable source of information for each turtle species since the
number of nests laid reflects the reproductive output of the nesting group each year. A decline in
the annual nest counts has been measured or suggested for four of five western Atlantic
loggerhead nesting groups through 2004 (NMFS and USFWS 2007a), however, data collected
since 2004 suggests nest counts have stabilized or increased (TEWG 2009). Nest counts for
Kemp’s ridley sea turtles as well as leatherback and green sea turtles in the Atlantic demonstrate
increased nesting by these species (NMFS and USFWS 2007b, 2007c, 2007d).

6.1.10.4 Large Cetaceans
The most recent Marine Mammal Stock Assessment Report (SAR) (Waring et al. 2009) reviewed
the current population trend for each of these cetacean species within U.S. EEZ waters, as well as
providing information on the estimated annual human-caused mortality and serious injury, and a
description of the commercial fisheries that interact with each stock in the U.S. Atlantic.
Information from the SAR is summarized below.
The western North Atlantic baleen whale species (North Atlantic right, humpback, fin, sei, and
minke) follow a general annual pattern of migration from high latitude summer foraging grounds,
including the Gulf and Maine and Georges Bank, and low latitude winter calving grounds (Perry
et al. 1999, Kenney 2002). However, this is an oversimplification of species movements, and the
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

299

Affected Environment
Physical and Biological Environment

complete winter distribution of most species is unclear (Perry et al. 1999, Waring et al. 2009).
Studies of some of the large baleen whales (right, humpback, and fin) have demonstrated the
presence of each species in higher latitude waters even in the winter (Swingle et al. 1993, Wiley
et al. 1995, Perry et al. 1999, Brown et al. 2002). Blue whales are most often sighted on the east
coast of Canada, particularly in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and occurs only infrequently within the
U.S. EEZ (Waring et al. 2002).
In comparison to the baleen whales, sperm whale distribution occurs more on the continental
shelf edge, over the continental slope, and into mid-ocean regions (Waring et al. 2006).
However, sperm whales distribution in U.S. EEZ waters also occurs in a distinct seasonal cycle
(Waring et al. 2006). Typically, sperm whale distribution is concentrated east-northeast of Cape
Hatteras in winter and shifts northward in spring when whales are found throughout the MidAtlantic Bight (Waring et al. 2006). Distribution extends further northward to areas north of
Georges Bank and the Northeast Channel region in summer and then south of New England in
fall, back to the Mid-Atlantic Bight (Waring et al. 1999).
For North Atlantic right whales, the available information suggests that the population is
increasing at a rate of 1.8 percent per year during 1990-2003, and the total number of North
Atlantic right whales is estimated to be at least 323 animals in 2003 (Waring et al. 2009). The
minimum rate of annual human-caused mortality and serious injury to right whales averaged 3.8
per year during 2002 to 2006 (Waring et al. 2009). Of these, 1.4 per year resulted from fishery
interactions. Recent mortalities included six female right whales, including three that were
pregnant at the time of death (Waring et al. 2009).
The North Atlantic population of humpback whales is estimated to be 11,570, although the
estimate is considered to be negatively biased (Waring et al. 2009). The best estimate for the
Gulf of Maine stock of humpback whales is 847 whales (Waring et al. 2009). The population
trend was considered positive for the Gulf of Maine population, but there are insufficient data to
estimate the trend for the larger North Atlantic population. Based on data available for selected
areas and time periods, the minimum population estimates for other western north Atlantic whale
stocks are 2,269 fin whales, 207 sei whales, 4,804 sperm whales, and 3,312 minke whales
(Waring et al. 2009). No recent estimates are available for blue whale abundance. Insufficient
data exist to determine trends for any other large whale species.
The ALWTRP was recently revised with publication of a new final rule (72 FR 57104, October 5,
2007) that is intended to continue to address entanglement of large whales (right, humpback, fin,
and minke) in commercial fishing gear and to reduce the risk of death and serious injury from
entanglements that do occur.

6.1.10.5 Small Cetaceans
Numerous small cetacean species (dolphins; pygmy and dwarf sperm whales; pilot and beaked,
whales; and the harbor porpoise) occur within [the area from Cape Hatteras through the Gulf of
Maine]. Seasonal abundance and distribution of each species in [Mid-Atlantic, Georges Bank,
and/or Gulf of Maine] waters varies with respect to life history characteristics. Some species
primarily occupy continental shelf waters (e.g., white sided dolphins, harbor porpoise), while
others are found primarily in continental shelf edge and slope waters (e.g., Risso’s dolphin), and
still others occupy all three habitats (e.g., common dolphin, spotted dolphins, striped dolphins).
Information on the western North Atlantic stocks of each species is summarized in Waring et al.
(2009).

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

300

Affected Environment
Physical and Biological Environment

6.1.10.6 Pinnipeds
Of the four species of seals expected to occur in the area, harbor seals have the most extensive
distribution with sightings occurring as far south as 30° N (Katona et al. 1993, Waring et al.
2009). Gray seals are the second most common seal species in U.S. EEZ waters, occurring
primarily in New England (Katona et al. 1993; Waring et al. 2009). Pupping for both species
occurs in both U.S. and Canadian waters of the western north Atlantic with the majority of harbor
seal pupping likely occurring in U.S. waters and the majority of gray seal pupping in Canadian
waters, although there are at least three gray seal pupping colonies in U.S. waters as well. Harp
and hooded seals are less commonly observed in U.S. EEZ waters. Both species form
aggregations for pupping and breeding off eastern Canada in the late winter/early spring, and then
travel to more northern latitudes for molting and summer feeding (Waring et al. 2006). Both
species have a seasonal presence in U.S. waters from Maine to New Jersey, based on sightings,
stranding, and fishery bycatch (Waring et al. 2009).

6.1.10.7 Species Not Likely to be Affected
NMFS has determined that the action being considered in the EA (i.e., approval of the NEFS-I
Operations Plan) is not likely to adversely affect shortnose sturgeon, the Gulf of Maine distinct
population segment (DPS) of Atlantic salmon, hawksbill sea turtles, blue whales, or sperm
whales, all of which are listed as endangered species under the ESA. Shortnose sturgeon and
salmon belonging to the Gulf of Maine DPS of Atlantic salmon occur within the general
geographical areas fished by the groundfish fishery, but they are unlikely to occur in the area
where the groundfish fishery operates given their numbers and distribution. Therefore, none of
these species are likely to be affected by the groundfish fishery. The following discussion
provides the rationale for these determinations. Although there are additional species that may
occur in the operations area that are not known to interact with the specific gear types that would
be used by the groundfish fishery, impacts to these species are still considered due to their range
and similarity of behaviors to species that have been adversely affected.
Shortnose sturgeon are benthic fish that mainly occupy the deep channel sections of large rivers.
Shortnose sturgeon can be found in rivers along the western Atlantic coast from St. Johns River,
Florida (although the species is possibly extirpated from this system), to the Saint John River in
New Brunswick, Canada. The species is anadromous in the southern portion of its range (i.e.,
south of Chesapeake Bay), while some northern populations are amphidromous (NMFS 1998).
Since the groundfish fishery would not operate in or near the rivers where concentrations of
shortnose sturgeon are most likely found, it is highly unlikely that the groundfish fishery would
affect shortnose sturgeon.
The wild populations of Atlantic salmon found in rivers and streams from the lower Kennebec
River north to the U.S. - Canada border are listed as endangered under the ESA. These
populations include those in the Dennys, East Machias, Machias, Pleasant, Narraguagus,
Ducktrap, and Sheepscot Rivers and Cove Brook. Juvenile salmon in New England rivers
typically migrate to sea in May after a 2- to 3-year period of development in freshwater streams,
and remain at sea for two winters before returning to their U.S. natal rivers to spawn. Results
from a 2001 post-smolt trawl survey in Penobscot Bay and the nearshore waters of the Gulf of
Maine indicate that Atlantic salmon post-smolts are prevalent in the upper water column
throughout this area in mid- to late May. Therefore, commercial fisheries deploying small-mesh
active gear (pelagic trawls and purse seines within 10 m of the surface) in nearshore waters of the
Gulf of Maine may have the potential to incidentally take smolts. However, it is highly unlikely
that the groundfish fishery would affect the Gulf of Maine DPS of Atlantic salmon given that
operation of the groundfish fishery would not occur in or near the rivers where concentrations of
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

301

Affected Environment
Physical and Biological Environment

Atlantic salmon are likely to be found and groundfishing gear used by the groundfish fishery
operates in the ocean at or near the bottom rather than near the water surface. Thus, this species
is not considered further in this EA.
The hawksbill turtle is uncommon in the waters of the continental U.S. Hawksbills prefer coral
reefs, such as those found in the Caribbean and Central America. Hawksbills feed primarily on a
wide variety of sponges but also consume bryozoans, coelenterates, and mollusks. The Culebra
Archipelago of Puerto Rico contains especially important foraging habitat for hawksbills.
Nesting areas in the western North Atlantic include Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. There are
accounts of hawksbills in south Florida and individuals have been sighted along the east coast as
far north as Massachusetts; however, east coast sightings north of Florida are rare (NMFS 2009a).
Since operation of the groundfish fishery would not occur in waters that are typically used by
hawksbill sea turtles, it is highly unlikely that its operations would affect this turtle species.
Blue whales do not regularly occur in waters of the U.S. EEZ (Waring et al. 2009). In the North
Atlantic, blue whales are most frequently sighted in the St. Lawrence from April to January
(Sears 2002). No blue whales were observed during the Cetacean and Turtle Assessment
Program (CeTAP) surveys of the mid- and north Atlantic areas of the outer continental shelf
(CeTAP 1982). Calving for the species occurs in low latitude waters outside of the area where
the groundfish fishery operates. Blue whales feed on euphausiids (krill) that are too small to be
captured in fishing gear. Given that the species is unlikely to occur in areas where the groundfish
fishery operates, and given that the fishery would not affect the availability of blue whale prey or
areas where calving and nursing of young occurs, the Proposed Action would not be likely to
adversely affect blue whales.
Unlike blue whales, sperm whales do regularly occur in waters of the EEZ. However, the
distribution of the sperm whales in the EEZ occurs on the continental shelf edge, over the
continental slope, and into mid-ocean regions (Waring et al. 2006). In contrast, the groundfish
fishery would operate in continental shelf waters. The average depth of sperm whale sightings
observed during the CeTAP surveys was 1792 m (CeTAP 1982). Female sperm whales and
young males almost always inhabit open ocean, deep water habitat with bottom depths greater
than 1000 m and at latitudes less than 40° N (Whitehead 2002). Sperm whales feed on large
squid and fish that inhabit the deeper ocean regions (Perrin et al. 2002). Given that sperm whales
are unlikely to occur in areas (based on water depth) where the groundfish fishery would operate,
and given that the operation fishery would not affect the availability of sperm whale prey or areas
where calving and nursing of young occurs, the Proposed Action would not be likely to adversely
affect sperm whales.
Although large whales and marine turtles may be potentially affected through interactions with
fishing gear, NMFS has determined that the continued authorization of the multispecies fishery,
and therefore the groundfish fishery, would not have any adverse effects on the availability of
prey for these species. Right whales and sei whales feed on copepods (Horwood 2002, Kenney
2002). The multispecies fishery would not affect the availability of copepods for foraging right
and sei whales because copepods are very small organisms that would pass through multispecies
fishing gear rather than being captured in it. Humpback whales and fin whales also feed on krill
as well as small schooling fish (e.g., sand lance, herring, mackerel) (Aguilar 2002, Clapham
2002). Multispecies fishing gear operates on or very near the bottom. Fish species caught in
multispecies gear are species that live in benthic habitat (on or very near the bottom) such as
flounders versus schooling fish such as herring and mackerel that occur within the water column.
Therefore, the continued authorization of the multispecies fishery would not affect the availability

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

302

Affected Environment
Physical and Biological Environment

of prey for foraging humpback or fin whales. Moreover, none of the turtle species are known to
feed upon groundfish.

6.1.10.8 Interactions Between Gear and Protected Resources
Commercial fisheries are categorized by NMFS based on a two-tiered, stock-specific fishery
classification system that addresses both the total impact of all fisheries on each marine mammal
stock as well as the impact of individual fisheries on each stock. The system is based on the
numbers of animals per year that incur incidental mortality or serious injury due to commercial
fishing operations relative to a stock's Potential Biological Removal (PBR) level (the maximum
number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be removed from a marine
mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable
population). Tier 1 takes into account the cumulative mortality and serious injury to marine
mammals caused by commercial fisheries while Tier 2 considers marine mammal mortality
caused by the individual fisheries; Tier 2 classifications are used in this EA to indicate how each
type of gear proposed for use in the Proposed Action may affect marine mammals (NMFS
2009b). Table 49 identifies the classifications used in the List of Fisheries (LOF) proposed for
FY 2010 (50 CFR 229), which are broken down into Tier 2 Categories I, II, and III).
Table 49 - Descriptions of the Tier 2 Fishery Classification Categories
Category

Category Description

Tier 2, Category I

A commercial fishery that has frequent incidental mortality and serious injury of
marine mammals. This classification indicates that a commercial fishery is, by itself,
responsible for the annual removal of 50 percent or more of any stock’s potential
biological removal (PBR) level.

Tier 2, Category II

A commercial fishery that has occasional incidental mortality and serious injury of
marine mammals. This classification indicates that a commercial fishery is one that,
collectively with other fisheries, is responsible for the annual removal of more than 10
percent of any marine mammal stock’s PBR level and that is by itself responsible for
the annual removal of between 1 percent and 50 percent, exclusive of any stock’s
PBR.

Tier 2, Category III

A commercial fishery that has a remote likelihood of, or no known incidental mortality
and serious injury of marine mammals. This classification indicates that a commercial
fishery is one that collectively with other fisheries is responsible for the annual removal
of:
a.
Less than 50 percent of any marine mammal stock’s PBR level, or
b.
More than 1 percent of any marine mammal stock’s PBR level, yet that fishery by
itself is responsible for the annual removal of 1 percent or less of that stock’s
PBR level. In the absence of reliable information indicating the frequency of
incidental mortality and serous injury of marine mammals by a commercial
fishery, the Assistant Administrator would determine whether the incidental
serious injury or mortality is “remote” by evaluating other factors such as fishing
techniques, gear used, methods used to deter marine mammals, target species,
seasons and areas fished, qualitative data from logbooks or fisher reports,
stranding data, and the species and distribution of marine mammals in the area
or at the discretion of the Assistant Administrator.

Interactions between gear and a given species occur when fishing gear overlaps both spatially and
trophically with the species’ niche. Spatial interactions are more “passive” and involve
unintentional interactions with fishing gear. Trophic interactions are more “active” and occur
when protected species attempt to consume prey caught in fishing gear and become entangled in
the process. Spatial and trophic interactions can occur with various types of fishing gear used by
the multispecies fishery through the year. Large and small cetaceans and sea turtles are more
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

303

Affected Environment
Physical and Biological Environment

prevalent within the operations area during the spring and summer, although they are also
relatively abundant during the fall and would have a higher potential for interaction with Sector
vessels during these seasons. Although harbor seals may be more likely to occur in the
operations area between fall and spring, harbor and gray seals are year-round residents; therefore,
interactions could occur year-round. The uncommon occurrences of hooded and harp seals in the
operations area are more likely to occur during the winter and spring, allowing for an increased
potential for interactions during the winter.
Although interactions between deployed gear and protected species would vary, interactions
generally include becoming caught on hooks (longlines), entanglement in mesh (gillnets and
trawls), entanglement in the float line (gillnets and trawls), entanglement in the groundline
(gillnets, trawls, and longlines), entanglement in anchor lines (gillnets and longlines), or
entanglement in the vertical lines that connect gear to the surface and surface systems (gillnets,
trawls, and longlines). Entanglements are assumed to occur with increased frequency in areas
where more gear is set and in areas with higher concentrations of protected species.
Table 50 lists the marine mammals known to have had interactions with sink gillnets, bottom
trawls, and bottom longlines within the Gulf of Maine and Georges Bank, as excerpted from the
proposed LOF for FY 2010 (also see Waring et al. 2009). Northeast sink gillnets have the
greatest potential for interaction with protected resources, followed by bottom trawls. Impacts to
protected resources through interaction with bottom longline gear are not known within the
operations area; however, interactions between the pelagic longline fishery and both pilot whales
and Risso’s dolphins led to the development of the Pelagic Longline Take Reduction Plan.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

304

Affected Environment
Physical and Biological Environment

Table 50 - Marine Mammal Impacts Based on Ground-fishing Gear and Northeast Multispecies
Fishing Areas (based on 2010 List of Fisheries)
Fishery
Category

Type

Estimated
Number of
Vessels/Persons

Marine Mammal Species and Stocks Incidentally
Killed or Injured

Tier 2,
Category I

Mid-Atlantic
gillnet

7,596

Bottlenose dolphin, western north Atlantic (WNA),
coastala
Bottlenose dolphin, WNA, offshore
Common dolphin, WNA
Gray seal, WNA
Harbor porpoise, Gulf of Maine(GOM)/Bay of
Fundy(BOF)
Harbor seal, WNA
Harp seal, WNA
Humpback whale, GOM
Long-finned pilot whale, WNA
Minke whale, Canadian east coast
Short-finned pilot whale, WNA
White-sided dolphin, WNA

Tier 2,
Category I

Northeast sink
gillnet

>6,455

Bottlenose dolphin, WNA, offshore
Common dolphin, WNA
Fin whale, WNA
Gray seal, WNA
Harbor porpoise, GOM/BOF a
Harbor seal, WNA
Harp seal, WNA
Hooded seal, WNA
Humpback whale, GOM
Minke whale, Canadian east coast
North Atlantic right whale, WNA
Risso’s dolphin, WNA
White-sided dolphin, WNA

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

305

Affected Environment
Physical and Biological Environment

Table 50 (cont.)
Fishery
Category

Tier 2,
Category II

Tier 2,
Category III

Type

Estimated
Number of
Vessels/Persons

Marine Mammal Species and Stocks Incidentally
Killed or Injured

Mid-Atlantic
bottom trawl

>1,000

Common dolphin, WNA a
Long-finned pilot whale, WNA a
Short-finned pilot whale, WNA a
White-sided dolphin, WNA a

Northeast
bottom trawl

1,600

Atlantic mixed
species
trap/pot c

>429

Common dolphin, WNA
Gray seal, WNAb
Harbor porpoise, GOM/BF
Harbor seal, WNA
Harp seal, WNA
Long-finned pilot whale, WNA
Short-finned pilot whale, WNA
White-sided dolphin, WNA a
Fin whale, WNA d
Humpback whale, GOM

Northeast/MidAtlantic bottom
longline/hookand-line

None documented in recent years

To minimize potential impacts to certain cetaceans, multispecies fishing vessels would be
required to adhere to measures in the ALWTRP, which was developed to reduce the incidental
take of large whales, specifically the right, humpback, fin, and minke whales in specific Category
I or II commercial fishing efforts that utilize traps/pots and gillnets. The ALWTRP calls for the
use of gear markings, area restrictions, and use of weak links, and neutrally buoyant groundline.
Fishing vessels would be required to implement the ALWTRP in all areas where gillnets were
used. In addition, the HPTRP would be implemented in the Gulf of Maine to reduce interactions
between the harbor porpoise and gillnets; the HPTRP implements gear specifications, seasonal
area closures, and in some cases, the use of pingers (acoustic devices that emit a loud sound) to
deter harbor porpoises, and other marine mammals, from approaching the nets.
Although sea turtles have been caught and injured or killed in multiple types of fishing gear,
including gillnets and hook and line fishing, mortalities from these gear types account for only
about 50 percent of the mortalities associated with trawling gear (NMFS 2009c). A study
conducted in the mid-Atlantic region showed that bottom trawling accounts for an average annual
take of 616 loggerhead sea turtles, although Kemp’s ridleys and leatherbacks were also caught
during the study period (Murray 2006). Sea turtles generally occur in more temperate waters than
those in the Northeast multispecies area, impacts to sea turtles under the Proposed Action would
be similar to those in the Common Pool. Gillnets are considered more detrimental to marine
mammals such as pilot whales, dolphins, porpoises, and seals, as well as large marine whales;
however, protection for marine mammals would be provided through various Take Reduction
Plans outlined above.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

306

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery

6.2

Human Communities and the Fishery

6.2.1 Overview
The Affected Human Environment section describes the New England multispecies fishery,
examining how management actions and changes in fishing activity have shaped the fishing
industry and fishing communities over time. Social, economic and fishery information presented
in this section are useful in describing the response of the fishery to past management actions and
predicting how the present action may affect the multispecies fishery. Additionally, this section of
the document establishes a descriptive baseline for the fishery with which to compare actual and
predicted future changes that result from management actions. While some information is
presented beginning in FY 2001, the focus is on changes since the adoption of Amendment 13 in
FY 2004 and FW 42 in FY 2006. For a complete discussion of prior management actions leading
up to Amendment 16, refer to section 3.1, “Brief History of Prior Management Actions.”
This information helps to meet the legal requirements of the Council under the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA), the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA), and other applicable laws. Specifically, it addresses National Standard 8,
established in a 1996 amendment to the Magnuson-Stevens Act. National Standard 8 of the
MSFCMA states that: Conservation and management measures shall, consistent with the
conservation requirements of this act (including the prevention of overfishing and rebuilding of
overfished stocks), take into account the importance of fishery resources to fishing communities
in order to (a) provide for sustained participation of such communities, and (b) to the extent
practicable, minimize adverse economic impacts on such communities.
National Standard 8 requires the Council to consider the importance of fishery resources to
affected communities and provide those communities with continuing access to fishery resources,
but it does not allow the Council to compromise the conservation objectives of the management
measures. “Sustained participation” is interpreted as continued access to the fishery within the
constraints of the condition of the resource.
NEPA requires federal agencies to consider the interactions of natural and human environments
and the impacts on both systems of any changes due to governmental activities or policies. This
analysis should be done by means of "a systematic, interdisciplinary approach which will ensure
the integrated use of the natural and social sciences ... in planning and decision-making" [NEPA
section 102(2)(a)]. Environmental values must be considered and weighed on par with technical
and economic considerations. Environmental values include angler satisfaction, job satisfaction,
an independent life-style for commercial fishermen, and the opportunity to see species in the wild
for the non-consumptive user of marine fishery resources.
NEPA specifies that the term human environment shall be interpreted comprehensively to include
the natural and physical environment and the relationship of people with that environment [40
CFR 1508.14]. When analyses predict that a fishery management action or policy will have a
significant effect on the human environment, a detailed Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
with analysis of these impacts must be prepared. Amendment 16 addresses this requirement with
a complete, detailed EIS.
A full range of impact assessments – ecological, economic, and social – are necessary not only to
meet MSFCMA and NEPA requirements, but also to improve the Council’s decision-making

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

307

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery

process. The following discussion provides a useful tool for assessing the environmental impacts
of Amendment 13 and the cumulative effects of past, present and future management actions.
The Affected Human Environment of the multispecies fishery was described in detail in section
9.4 of Amendment 13. That discussion described the Northeast Multispecies fishery from FY
1994 (the year of implementation of Amendment 5) through 2001 since, for the most part, data
was only available to describe the fishery through FY 2001. The information provided in that
discussion is useful for understanding the response of the fishery to past management actions and
in predicting how the fishery may respond to the management actions implemented by
Amendment 13. That discussion also helps meet the M-S Act requirement to take into account the
importance of fishery resources to fishing communities in order to provide for the sustained
participation of those communities, and, consistent with the conservation requirements of the M-S
Act, to the extent practicable, minimize the adverse economic impacts on such communities.
Section 9.4 of Amendment 13 also helps fill a NEPA requirement to consider the interactions of
the natural and human environments and the impacts on both systems of any changes due to
governmental actions or policies.
Substantial changes took place in the multispecies fishery after FY 2001. In FY 2002 and 2003,
the fishery was managed under provisions implemented as a result of a lawsuit (Conservation
Law Foundation et al v. Donald Evans) that imposed additional restrictions that were not in place
in FY 2001: reductions in effort, additional closed areas, changes in gear, mesh size, etc. In FY
2004, Amendment 13 again modified the management program in order to adopt formal
rebuilding programs. The next major modification was when FW 42 was implemented in
November, 2006, in order to continue the rebuilding programs adopted by Amendment 13.
The Affected Human Environment section is organized in the following format:
Section 6.2.3 - Commercial Harvesting Sector
This section describes the composition of the fleet in terms of permit category, gear type, vessel
size, and home port state. Discussion of the multispecies fishery focuses primarily on the years
2001 through 2007, inclusive. Because of their significant effects on the multispecies fishery,
Amendments 5 (1994) and 7 (1996) to the multispecies plan are used as historical markers to
frame the discussion of the commercial harvesting sector.
Section 6.2.5 - Recreational Harvesting Sector
The recreational harvesting sector, which comprises both individual anglers and charter/party
boats, is described independent of the commercial sector. While the recreational sector is
increasing in magnitude within the multispecies fishery, it cannot be analyzed in conjunction with
the commercial sector because of differences in the way landings data are reported and managed.
The recreational catch is composed primarily of cod, haddock and winter flounder. Pollock, other
flounder and hake contribute to a less substantial portion of the recreational catch.
Section 6.2.6 - Wholesale Trade and Processing Sector
This section describes the processing sector, distinguishing between the fresh fish processing and
frozen fish processing industries. In addition, it includes information on wholesale firms, which
do not process fish but buy from processors and sell to retail outlets, institutions, and other
consumers.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

308

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery

6.2.2 Comparison of Catches to Target TACs
The implementation of ACLs (section 5.2.1) will require evaluations of management uncertainty.
One indicator of uncertainty will be a comparison of the ACL to actual catch levels. If the ACL is
frequently exceeded that implies that the management measures are not controlling catch and a
larger difference may be needed between the ACL and the ABC to avoid overfishing. If catches
fall well below the ACL, then it may be that management measures are overly restrictive and
need to be relaxed to allow for harvesting additional yield.
While the Northeast Multispecies FMP will not implement ACLs until this action is
implemented, since FY 1996 the FMP has specified target total allowable catches (TTACs) to use
as an indicator of plan performance. Initially specific TTACs were only specified for five major
stocks: GB and GOM cod, GB haddock, and GB and SNE yellowtail flounder. With the
implementation of Amendment 13 in FY 2004 TTACs were specified for eighteen of the nineteen
groundfish stocks, the exception being Atlantic halibut. There is one period – FY 2002 and FY
2003 – when neither TTACs nor management measures were identified by the Council as a result
of a court order, and there have been isolated instances where a specific TTAC was not specified
due to problems with an assessment or a projection. In most instances the TTAC is the median
catch expected to result from the target fishing mortality (FMSY if the stock is not in a rebuilding
program, Frebuild for stocks in a rebuilding program). It is important to note that the TTAC for
stocks in a rebuilding program is not set at the FMSY level – it is set at Frebuild. From FY 2004
through FY 2008, there were rebuilding mortality targets that exceeded FMSY for several stocks.
Table 51 reports the ratio of actual catch to the specified TTAC. For this table “catch” includes the
elements of removals (landings, discards, recreational harvest) that were used to develop the
TTAC and is not the same for every stock. Because of the timing of the multispecies fishing year,
which begins on May 1, there is always a problem in comparing catch to TTAC. The TTAC is
actually calculated for a calendar year but is implemented for the fishing year. To develop the
table catches for a calendar year were compared to the TTAC. While this conflicts with the way
TTACs are implemented, it is more consistent with how fishing mortality and TTACs are actually
calculated. It also allows the comparison to use catch as estimated by the assessment, which
allows for a more accurate estimate of discards.

Since Amendment 7, the Council has recommended 99 TTACs through FY 2007. In that same
period 30 of the TTACs have been exceeded (30 percent). 23 of those instances occurred from
1996 through 2001. Since the implementation of Amendment 13 in FY 2004, there have been 70
TTACs specified and 7 TTACs have been exceeded (10 percent). Amendment 13 was
implemented on May 1, 2004 and 2005 was the first year that the regulations were implemented
for an entire calendar year. Since 2005 there have been 54 TTACs specified and 3 exceeded (5.6
percent). For the stocks with a TTAC, on average catches were 59 percent of the TTAC since
2004. Catches ranged from a low of 5 percent of the TTAC (ocean pout, 2005) to a high of 253
percent of the TTAC (SNE/MA yellowtail flounder, 2006).
When TTACs were specified by the NEFSC for 2004 and 2005, the projections used the same
recruitment and other assumptions that were used for the determination of status determination
criteria. While at the time this seemed appropriate so that the TTACs were consistent with the
target fishing mortality rates and biomass targets, in hindsight this ignored short-term recruitment
and resource condition patterns that differed from long-term expectations. As a result, TTACs
were likely set too high and comparing catch to the TTACs does not provide a useful indication
of whether overfishing was occurring or not. Indeed, Council members questioned some of these
TTACs when voting on Amendment 13. For 2006, 2007, and 2008, the TTACs were calculated
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

309

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery

using more realistic assumptions (recruitment, weights at age, selectivity, etc.) that were agreed
upon by the review panel. This meant that short-term TTACs were based on more current
conditions for this stock. This does not appear to have improved the performance of the TTACs
as indicators of overfishing.
Since 2004, the management measures have succeeded in keeping catches below the specified
TTACs for 95 percent of the TTACs specified, yet overfishing continues on thirteen stocks
(GARM III) and fishing mortality exceeded rebuilding targets for many stocks. One possible
interpretation of these results is that the TTACs were mis-specified and did not adequately
incorporate scientific uncertainty. As previously explained, the way TTACs were calculated by
the NEFSC in 2004 and 2005 lends support to this argument for those two years. Since 2006,
when more realistic assumptions were used in the projections, the explanation weakens when
specific stocks are examined. For example, witch flounder catches from 2005 – 2007 were 40
percent or less of the TTAC and yet fishing mortality in 2007 was estimated as 1.5 times the
overfishing level; GOM cod catch in 2007 was 53 percent of the TTAC yet fishing mortality in
2007 was over twice FMSY . It will be difficult for ACLs to incorporate enough uncertainty to
account for such large differences between predicted catches and realized fishing mortality rates
unless there is substantial improvement in the performance of projections.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

310

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery

Table 51 – Comparison of catch to TTAC, 1996 – 2007. Instances where catch exceeded TTAC are underlined and in bold-face.
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
GOM COD
0.88
2.20
2.53
6.10
5.31
2.77
1.20
GB COD
0.67
2.07
1.48
1.51
1.84
2.17
3.79
1.22
GB HADDOCK
0.11
0.55
0.38
0.50
0.54
0.41
0.56
0.59
0.85
GB YTF
2.83
1.69
1.79
1.53
1.13
1.06
4.35
SNE/MA YTF
0.87
0.19
1.51
1.36
1.33
1.33
1.33
5.03
GOM HADDOCK
0.20
0.20
CC/GOM YTF
0.81
1.35
PLAICE
0.55
0.43
WITCH
0.62
0.40
REDFISH
0.24
0.33
WHITE HAKE
0.94
0.72
POLLOCK
0.69
0.79
GOM WINTER
0.21
0.15
GB WINTER
0.95
0.70
SNE/MA WINTER
0.65
0.57
WINDOWPANE - N
0.05
0.09
WINDOWPANE - S
0.21
0.14
OCEAN POUT
0.07
0.05
HALIBUT

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

311

2006
0.88
0.44
0.11
0.76
2.53
0.48
0.95
0.36
0.35
0.26
0.87
0.59

2007
0.53
0.44
0.05
1.74
1.86
0.55
0.58
0.38
0.23
0.38
0.94
0.75

0.62
0.63
0.12
0.32
0.13

0.49
0.64
0.31
0.49
0.09

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery

6.2.3 Commercial Harvesting Sector
The multispecies fishery in the Northeastern United States is made up of a commercial sector and
a recreational sector, which target the twelve species that constitute the large-mesh multispecies
management unit and the three small-mesh species managed as a separate multispecies unit. This
section focuses on the commercial harvesting sector.
The commercial sector consists of a wide range of vessels of different sizes using different gear
types. These vessels are homeported in several coastal states, with most vessels claiming
homeports in Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island. Gears that are typically
used in the fishery include otter trawls, sink gillnets, bottom longlines, and hook gear. Detailed
descriptions of these gears, and their impacts on EFH, are provided in section 9.2.3 of
Amendment 13. A short summary is provided in section 6.1.6.
In addition to information on fishing effort, landings, and revenues, this section includes brief
overviews of several management programs that were adopted in Amendment 13 or subsequent
frameworks and are being considered for modification or renewal in this action. These programs
include the DAS leasing program, the CAI Hook Gear Haddock SAP, and the Eastern U.S./CA
Area Haddock SAP. While the CAII yellowtail flounder SAP may be modified in this action,
there hasn’t been any activity in this SAP since FY 2004 that was summarized in FW 42.
Since the implementation of Amendment 5 in 1994, all vessels that land regulated groundfish for
commercial sale have been required to have a permit. Moratorium - commonly called limited
access - permits were granted to vessels based on fishing history during a defined period. Limited
access permit holders land most regulated groundfish. The only new limited access permits
granted since 1994 have been to a small number of handgear vessels in FY 2004, but the
ownership of many vessels issued permits has changed. Most limited access permits are restricted
in the number of DAS that can be fished. In addition, there have been open access permit
categories. Open access permits can be requested at any time, with the limitation that a vessel
cannot have a limited access and open access permit at the same time. Permits are issued in
different categories, depending on the activity and history of the vessel. There have been several
changes in the defined permit categories, as Amendment 5, Amendment 7, and Amendment 13 all
changed the category definitions. For this reason, when examining fishing activity based on
permit category, care must be taken to make comparisons to similar permits. Many groundfish
vessels have permits for, and participate in, other fisheries. For some vessels groundfish revenues
are only a small part of total fishing revenues.
Adopted in 1996, Amendment 7 implemented several different limited and open access permit
categories in the multispecies fishery that were in effect in through FY 2003. Limited access
multispecies permit categories are described in CFR 648.82, while open access multispecies
permit categories are described in CFR 648.88. The limited access permit categories were:
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.

Individual
Fleet
Small vessel exemption
Hook gear
Combination vessel
Large mesh individual DAS

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

312

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery

G. Large mesh fleet DAS
The open access categories were:
H.
I.
J.
K.

Handgear permit
Scallop multispecies possession limit permit
Non-regulated multispecies permit
Charter/party (vessels cannot sell their catch and this is not considered a commercial
permit)

Amendment 13 modified groundfish permit categories by eliminating the Fleet DAS category,
creating a limited access Handgear A category, and changing the designation of open-access
handgear permits to a Handgear B permit category.

Limited Access Permit Categories
(A) Individual DAS:
Individual DAS vessels are subject to DAS restrictions. Any vessel issued a valid
Individual DAS permit as of July 1, 1996 (except those that were issued a gillnet permit)
was assigned to the Individual DAS category in Amendment 7.
(B) Fleet DAS:
Fleet DAS vessels are subject to DAS restrictions. Any vessel issued one of the following
permits as of July 1, 1996 was assigned to the Fleet DAS category in Amendment 7:
Fleet DAS permit, Gillnet permit, limited access Hook-Gear permit, “Less than or equal
to 45 ft (13.7 m)” permit to a vessel larger than 20 ft (6.1 m) in length as determined by
its most recent permit application.
(C) Small Vessel Exemption:
Small vessel category vessels may retain up to 300 lb (136.1 kg) of cod, haddock, and
yellowtail flounder, combined, and one Atlantic halibut per trip without being subject to
DAS restrictions. These vessels are not subject to possession limits for other NE
multispecies. Any vessel that has a valid limited access multispecies permit, was fishing
with a small vessel category permit (less than or equal to 45 ft (13.7 m)) as of July 1,
1996, and is 20 ft (6.1 m) or less in length as determined by the vessel’s last application
for a permit, was assigned to the small vessel category in Amendment 7.
(D) Hook Gear:
Hook gear vessels are subject to DAS restrictions. Each hook-gear vessel is limited to
4,500 rigged hooks and is prohibited from possessing gear other than hook gear on board.
(E) Combination Vessel:
Combination vessels are scallop dredge vessels that qualified for a multispecies permit
because of groundfish landings using trawls. These vessels are subject to DAS
restrictions. A vessel issued a valid limited access multispecies permit and qualified to
fish as a combination vessel as of July 1, 1996 was assigned to the Combination vessel
category in Amendment 7.
(F) Large Mesh Individual DAS:

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

313

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery

Large mesh individual DAS vessels are subject to DAS restrictions. Large Mesh
Individual vessels are required to fish for the entire year with either trawl gear with a
minimum size of 8.5-inch (21.59 cm) diamond or square mesh.
(G) Large Mesh Fleet DAS:
Large mesh fleet DAS vessels are subject to DAS restrictions. Large Mesh Fleet vessels
were required to fish with trawl gear with a minimum size of 8.5-inch (21.59-cm)
diamond or square mesh.
(HA) Handgear A:
A vessel with a valid open access multispecies handgear permit is allowed to possess and
land up to 300 lb (136.1 kg) of cod, one Atlantic halibut per trip, and the daily possession
limit for other regulated NE multispecies, provided that the vessel did not use or possess
on board gear other than rod and reel or handlines while in possession of, fishing for, or
landing NE multispecies, and provided it has at least one standard tote on board. A
Handgear permit vessel may not fish for, possess, or land regulated species from March 1
through March 20 of each year.

Open Access Permit Categories
(HB) Handgear B:
The vessel may possess and land up to 75 lb of cod and up to the landing and possession
limit restrictions for other NE multispecies. The vessel may not use or possess on board
gear other than handgear while in possession of, fishing for, or landing NE multispecies,
and must have at least one standard tote on board; The vessel may not fish for, possess, or
land regulated species from March 1 through March 20 of each year; and the vessel, if
fishing with tub-trawl gear, may not fish with more than a maximum of 250 hooks.
(I) Charter/Party:
Any charter/party permit category vessel is subject to restrictions on gear, recreational
minimum fish sizes, possession limits, and specified prohibitions on sale.
(J) Scallop Multispecies Possession Limit:
A vessel that has been issued a valid open access scallop multispecies possession limit
permit may possess and land up to 300 lb (136.1 kg) of regulated species when fishing
under a scallop DAS, provided the vessel does not fish for, possess, or land haddock from
January 1 through June 30 and provided the vessel has at least one standard tote on board.
(K) Non-Regulated Multispecies:
A vessel issued a valid open access, non-regulated multispecies permit may possess and
land one Atlantic halibut and an unlimited quantity of the other non-regulated
multispecies. The vessel is subject to restrictions on gear, area, and time and other
restrictions.
Unlike previous reports, this section does not combine handgear permits with other permit
categories so that the trends in groundfish landings by this category can be identified. In addition,
both large mesh permit categories (fleet and individual DAS) are combined so that comparisons
can be made before and after implementation of Amendment 13. Totals do not include data that
cannot be reported due to confidentiality concerns.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

314

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery

Number of Vessels by Permit Category
The total number of permits is separated into the seven limited access permit categories below
(Table 52). These categories are the primary commercial categories, and do not include
party/charter permits, permits for small mesh fisheries, and the scallop vessel possession permit.
The total number of multispecies permits decreased from 3,263 permits in 2004 to 2,515 permits
in 2007, a decline of 23%. The number declined steadily in each year between 2004 and 2007.
For all years from 2004-2007, Handgear B permits make up the greatest percentage of permits,
while Individual DAS vessels make up the greatest percentage of DAS vessels. In general, while
numbers of individual, fleet DAS, and small vessel exemption permits declined from 2001 to
2004, numbers of combination vessel permits remained relatively constant across the time period.
Table 52 – Number of groundfish permits by permit category, FY 2004 – FY 2007
Year
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Individual DAS
1,249 1,215 1,205
1,196
1,082
Fleet DAS
47
Small Vessel Exemption
8
8
7
14
13
Hook Gear
119
103
93
87
73
Combination Vessel
47
47
50
48
47
Large Mesh Individual DAS
62
50
46
38
33
Handgear A
177
173
149
147
130
Handgear B
1,554 1,495 1,361
1,292
1,137
Grand Total
3,263 3,091 2,911
2,822
2,515

6.2.3.1

Commercial Harvesting Sector Data Caveats

Data Sources
NMFS Dealer Database
NMFS Permit Database
NMFS Enforcement Database
NMFS Observer Database
Reported Numbers of Vessels
When evaluating the number of vessels reported in any given table in the following sections it is
necessary to understand exactly which vessels those numbers represent. Depending on the way in
which the data were queried, a different number of vessels will emerge. In each of the following
sections, there are two tables describing the landings and revenues of vessels permitted in the
multispecies fishery. The first is associated with total landings by permitted multispecies vessels.
In this table, the number given for each fishing year is the quantity of vessels which possess
multispecies permits and were active in any fishery, which may or may not include the regulated
multispecies fishery, in that given fishing year. The second table is associated with groundfish
landings only. In this table, the number given for each fishing year is the landings of vessels
which possess multispecies permits and were active in the groundfish fishery, having landed at
least one pound of regulated groundfish, in that given fishing year. In all sections, the fishing
activity discussed is associated only with vessels that hold a multispecies permit--one large-mesh
limited access multispecies permit OR one or more open access multispecies permits.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

315

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery

6.2.3.2

DAS Allocations and Use

One of the principal management measures used to control groundfish fishing mortality is limits
on the amount of time (days-at-sea, or DAS) that permit holders can fish for regulated groundfish.
Most permits are allocated a fixed number of DAS. As mentioned previously, Amendment 13
reduced overall DAS allocations and categorizes DAS into four categories. Category A DAS can
be used to fish for any regulated groundfish stock and are similar to the DAS that were allocated
before Amendment 13. Category B (regular) and (reserve) DAS can only be used to target healthy
groundfish stocks within specific management programs that include controls on the incidental
catch of unhealthy stocks. Category C DAS cannot be used until some point in the future. FW 42
reduced the number of Category A DAS to permit holders, and increased the number of Category
B DAS by the same amount. This change reduced the number of Category A DAS available to
each permit by 8.3 percent.
Interpreting the relationship of DAS data to actual time spent fishing is complicated by changes
in how DAS were tracked and charged. After FY 1996, most limited access permits were required
to use DAS, and they were tracked through calls made by the vessel operator prior to sailing and
upon return. When trip limits were imposed that were based on DAS charged, some vessel
operators would either start their clock before leaving the dock or would let the clock run after
returning. Day gillnet vessels were charged a minimum of fifteen hours for any trip longer than
three hours, regardless of time spent fishing. By FY 2004, the number of vessels using a Vessel
Monitoring System (VMS) increased, and by FY 2006 all DAS vessels were required to use this
equipment. VMS does not start tracking DAS until a vessel crosses a demarcation line that is
outside the port, as opposed to when the vessel left the dock as under the call-in system. FY 2004
also marked the start of a program that does not charge DAS for vessels transiting to fish only in
the Eastern U.S./Canada area. Starting in FY 2006, in some areas DAS were charged at a
differential rate to reduce effort in those areas. The information in the following tables represents
DAS charged and takes into account differential DAS, transit time to the Eastern U.S./Canada
area that is not charged DAS, etc.
DAS Use by Multispecies Permit Category
From FY 2001 through FY 2003, Fleet vessels received and used the greatest number of DAS of
all the permit categories (Table 53). From FY 2004 through FY 2007, Individual DAS vessels
received and used the most by a large margin. In FY 2007, 94.1% of all DAS were used by
Individual DAS vessels. Individual permit vessels also used the greatest percentage of their
allocated days, with the exception of combination vessels which used up to 92.9% of the
allocated and net leased days in some years. The overall percentage of DAS used in the largest
categories generally increased each year.
DAS Use by Length Class
The total number of vessels using DAS in FY 2007 was 52% of the number in 2001 (Table 54).
Between FY 2001 and FY 2007, the total number of permitted limited access vessels declined by
20 percent. Generally, larger vessels used a higher percentage of their allocated DAS in all years.
Active limited access vessels generally used a greater percentage of their allocated DAS in FY
2007 than in FY 2001, with the exception of vessels less than 30 feet in length. Vessels in the 3049 foot length class used the greatest raw number of DAS in each year except FY 2005, when
vessels in the 50-74 foot length class used the most.
DAS Use by Gear Type
For this discussion, refer to Table 55. Primary gear is listed on the permit application and may not
match the gear actually used on a given trip.
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

316

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery

Bottom Trawl:
In FY 2001 there were 650 active vessels in the bottom trawl sector, 77% of the total number of
permitted bottom trawl vessels. The percentage of active vessels decreased over the next six
years, reaching 49% in FY 2007. DAS use by bottom trawl vessels generally increased from 2001
to 2007. 66% of the DAS allocated to active permitted bottom trawl vessels were used by these
vessels in FY 2001 and 80% of allocated and net leased DAS were used by active bottom trawl
vessels in FY 2007.
Bottom Longline:
In FY 2001 there were 115 active vessels in the bottom longline sector, 52% of the total number
of permitted bottom longline vessels. The percentage of active vessels decreased over the next six
years, reaching 27% in FY 2007. DAS use by bottom longline vessels generally increased from
FY 2001 to FY 2007. 38% of the DAS allocated to active permitted bottom longline vessels were
used by these vessels in FY 2001 and 41% of allocated and net leased DAS were used by active
bottom longline vessels in FY 2007.
Hook and Line:
In FY 2001 there were 84 active vessels in the hook and line sector, 49% of the total number of
permitted hook and line vessels. The percentage of active vessels decreased over the next six
years, reaching 14% in FY 2007. DAS use by hook and line vessels generally increased from FY
2001 to FY 2007. 24% of the DAS allocated to active permitted hook and line vessels were used
by these vessels in FY 2001 and 51% of allocated and net leased DAS were used by active hook
and line vessels in FY 2007.
Sink Gillnet:
In FY 2001 there were 228 active vessels in the sink gillnet sector, 71% of the total number of
permitted sink gillnet vessels. The percentage of active vessels decreased over the next six years,
reaching 59% in FY 2007. DAS use by sink gillnet vessels increased steadily throughout the FY
2001-FY 2007 time period. 59% of the DAS allocated to active permitted sink gillnet vessels
were used by these vessels in FY 2001 and 74% of allocated and net leased DAS were used by
active sink gillnet vessels in FY 2007.
DAS Use by Home Port State
Table 56 describes DAS use by homeport state, as reported on the vessel’s permit application.
These data illustrate the relative changes in the distribution of fishing activity on a regional basis.
Active vessels in Maine and New Hampshire have generally used a higher percentage of allocated
DAS than vessels in other states since FY 2001, but Massachusetts has been using an equivalent
percentage in recent years. All states except Connecticut, New York, and New Jersey used greater
than 70% of their allocated DAS in FY 2007. Active vessels in New York and New Jersey have
generally used a lower percentage of allocated DAS than vessels in other states since FY 2001. In
FY 2007, active vessels in New York and New Jersey used 61% and 59% of their allocated and
net leased DAS, respectively. Those numbers are substantially higher than the percentage of DAS
used in FY 2001.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

317

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery
Table 53 – Multispecies Limited Access A Days-at-Sea Used by Multispecies Permit Category
Categories

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Individual
Fleet
Combination
Hook Gear
Large Mesh
Total
Individual
Fleet
Combination
Hook Gear
Large Mesh
Total
Individual
Fleet
Combination
Hook Gear
Large Mesh
Total
Individual
Combination
Hook Gear
Large Mesh
Small Vessel Exemption
N/A
Total
Individual
Combination
Hook Gear
Large Mesh
Small Vessel Exemption
Total
Individual
Combination
Hook Gear
Large Mesh
Small Vessel Exemption
Total
Individual
Combination
Hook Gear
Large Mesh
Small Vessel Exemption
Total

Total Number
of Permitted
Vessels

137
1,169
47
174
62
1,589
138
1,041
47
120
56
1,402
139
1,047
47
115
56
1,404
1,188
37
115
57
7
80
1,484
1,128
46
94
44
8
1320
1107
47
82
41
7
1284
1,099
47
79
33
13
1,271

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

Total Daysat-Sea
Allocated

17,819
111,737
2,348
16,646
7,682
156,233
13,888
48,063
1,637
3,649
4,033
71,270
14,247
48,468
1,651
3,466
3,511
71,344
40,111
1,509
1,374
987
20
492
44,492
45,969
649
1,682
1,680
38
50,018
46,240
439
2,413
1,692
37
50,820
45,835
415
2,287
1,034
138
49,710

318

Number of
Permitted
Vessels that
Called In

132
789
23
95
58
1,097
131
734
16
61
50
992
132
683
15
54
47
931
692
25
38
17
0
1
773
619
11
31
24
0
685
568
3
22
32
0
625
524
5
19
25
1
574

DAS
Allocated to
Vessels that
Called In

17,356
76,277
1,681
9,104
7,171
111,589
13,629
40,882
962
2,432
3,858
61,763
13,908
39,192
928
2,127
3,178
59,334
36,982
1,450
1,085
766
0
33
40,317
34,529
472
1,119
1,127
0
37,247
31,184
189
1,472
1,261
0
34,106
28,721
204
1,277
956
12
31,170

DAS Allocated
and Net Leased
to Vessels that
Called In

41,022
485
1,105
1,540
0
44,152
40,137
169
1,479
1,631
0
43,416
40,637
296
1,265
990
12
43,200

Total DAS
Used

16,347
40,690
1,102
2,356
4,853
65,347
12,400
24,878
705
875
2,849
41,707
12,994
25,492
727
760
2,374
42,347
27,924
1,090
455
617
0
10
30,096
29,898
423
387
1,064
0
31,773
30,072
157
337
1,229
0
31,794
31,595
234
270
693
12
32,804

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery

Table 54 – Days-At-Sea Usage by Vessel Length Class, 2001-2006

Categories

2005

2006

2007

Bottom Trawl
Midwater Trawl
Other Trawl
Longline
Hand Line
Rod and Reel
Gillnet
Pots and Traps
Other
Total
Bottom Trawl
Midwater Trawl
Other Trawl
Longline
Hand Line
Rod and Reel
Gillnet
Pots and Traps
Other
Total
Bottom Trawl
Midwater Trawl
Other Trawl
Longline
Hand Line
Rod and Reel
Gillnet
Pots and Traps
Other
Total

DAS
Allocated
and Net
Leased to
Vessels that
Called In
31,634
191
370
2,050
634
400
8,449
49
291
44,068
29,741
137
472
2,107
457
511
9,494
46
394
43,360
30,108
122
522
1,922
407
431
9,415
46
227
43,200

Total
DAS Used

23,595
55
297
918
302
174
6,199
5
191
31,735
23,017
93
415
865
197
162
6,765
14
210
31,739
23,986
81
504
717
207
160
6,993
11
146
32,804

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery

Table 56 – Multispecies limited access A Days-At-Sea used by home port state, FY 2001-FY 2006
DAS
DAS
Total
Number of
Total Number
Allocated Allocated and
Days-atPermitted
of Permitted
to Vessels Net Leased to
State (Homeport)
Sea
Vessels that
Vessels
that
Vessels that
Allocated
Called In
Called In
Called In
213
21,141
130
13,517
2001
Maine
77
7,791
62
6,331
New Hampshire
847
83,956
629
64,591
Massachusetts
127
12,452
86
8,510
Rhode Island
17
1,606
13
1,214
Connecticut
155
14,932
94
9,138
New York
89
8,367
50
4,990
New Jersey
64
5,988
33
3,299
Other
1,589
156,233
1,097
111,589
Total
180
9,615
118
8,136
2002
Maine
73
4,266
56
3,816
New Hampshire
752
40,589
567
36,275
Massachusetts
107
5,848
83
5,187
Rhode Island
17
871
12
732
Connecticut
136
5,084
91
4,139
New York
79
2,866
41
2,013
New Jersey
58
2,131
24
1,465
Other
1,402
71,270
992
61,763
Total
187
10,394
119
8,680
2003
Maine
68
4,220
53
3,714
New Hampshire
752
40,347
522
34,465
Massachusetts
115
5,975
84
5,264
Rhode Island
17
848
13
716
Connecticut
129
4,713
76
3,406
New York
85
2,965
46
1,949
New Jersey
51
1,882
18
1,141
Other
1,404
71,344
931
59,334
Total
209
7,053
98
6,521
2004
Maine
75
2,836
47
2,577
New Hampshire
744
26,765
451
24,835
Massachusetts
116
3,146
67
2,899
Rhode Island
19
436
12
393
Connecticut
128
1,934
56
1,506
New York
83
1,129
33
901
New Jersey
110
1,194
9
686
Other
1,484
44,492
110
40,317
Total

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

322

Total DAS
Used
9,397
4,647
39,617
4,701
647
3,248
1,428
1,664
65,347
5,957
2,615
24,725
3,761
370
2,112
1,108
1,059
41,707
6,898
2,733
24,226
4,044
400
1,928
1,213
905
42,347
5,477
2,101
18,388
1,997
250
792
499
592
30,096

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery

State (Homeport)

2005

2006

2007

Maine
New Hampshire
Massachusetts
Rhode Island
Connecticut
New York
New Jersey
Other
Total
Maine
New Hampshire
Massachusetts
Rhode Island
Connecticut
New York
New Jersey
Other
Total
Maine
New Hampshire
Massachusetts
Rhode Island
Connecticut
New York
New Jersey
Other
Total

Total Number
of Permitted
Vessels

Total
Days-atSea
Allocated

Number of
Permitted
Vessels that
Called In

200
73
675
114
19
111
80
48
1,320
202
73
639
111
18
114
81
46
1,284
191
70
646
113
16
107
82
46
1,271

8,206
3,302
29,306
3,859
635
2,363
1,387
961
50,018
8,928
3,176
30,349
3,419
580
2,235
1,272
861
50,820
7,708
3,464
30,529
3,645
482
1,934
1,271
676
49,710

91
45
385
68
12
47
24
13
685
85
37
332
66
10
47
36
12
625
71
36
300
67
8
40
39
13
574

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

323

DAS
Allocated
to Vessels
that
Called In
5,479
2,608
21,669
3,505
535
1,741
1,020
689
37,247
5,389
2,117
19,619
3,048
447
1,702
1,174
610
34,106
4,456
2,078
18,130
2,982
382
1,459
1,182
501
31,170

DAS
Allocated and
Net Leased to
Vessels that
Called In
7,412
3,029
25,878
3,675
535
1,905
969
750
44,152
7,223
2,764
26,425
3,142
457
1,685
998
724
43,416
6,692
2,997
26,546
3,447
426
1,418
1,053
621
43,200

Total DAS
Used
5,731
2,217
18,734
2,661
258
1,094
450
629
31,773
5,173
2,210
19,542
2,445
347
948
535
595
31,794
5,377
2,398
19,714
3,110
279
858
620
448
32,804

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery

6.2.3.3

Landings and revenues

The commercial harvesting sector may be described as a function of its multiple components,
including gear types, vessels, and communities. In this section, activity in the commercial sector
is characterized in terms of permit category, vessel length class, gear type, home port state,
and landing port state. Because of the way in which the data is queried for each of these
descriptive approaches, total numbers of vessels, landings and revenues may differ slightly
among the four sections. Where such anomalies occur, we have attempted to provide a clear
explanation. Revenue is reported as gross revenue and does not take into account the changes in
fixed and operating costs over time (net revenue).
Landings and revenues by fishing year were summarized in Amendment 13, FW 40A, FW 40B,
FW 41, and FW 42. This section updates this information for FY 2004 through 2007. Minor
differences exist between the information previously reported and this section due to updates to
the databases and revisions to data queries. The data are also reported in different categories than
in previous reports in order to capture changes in permit categories and changes in landings and
revenues in communities.
Regulated groundfish (cod, haddock, yellowtail flounder, winter flounder, witch flounder,
windowpane flounder, plaice (dabs), pollock, redfish, Atlantic halibut, white hake, red/white hake
mixed) and ocean pout landings and revenues are summarized in Table 57. This table includes all
landings reported to the NMFS dealer database system, regardless of whether the landings can be
attributed to a multispecies permit. It includes aggregate landings reported by states and landings
that cannot be attributed to a permit as well as landings by vessels that did not possess a federal
multispecies permit (i.e. landings from state registered vessels fishing in state waters). Regulated
groundfish landings declined from 80 million pounds in FY 2004 to 61 million pounds (landed
weight) in FY 2007, or 24 percent. Nominal revenues increased 9.9 percent from FY 2004 ($96.7
million) to FY 2007 ($106.2 million), but revenues in constant 1999 dollars declined slightly
from $84.5 million in FY 2004 to $84.2 million in FY 2007, or 0.3 percent. The sections
following this table summarize landings and revenues for groundfish permit holders only.
Table 57 – Total Groundfish Landings and Revenues, FY 2004 - FY 2007
Fishing Year
2004
2005
2006
Total Groundfish Landed (Live weight)
87,021,916 71,809,881 54,812,140
Total Groundfish Landed (landed weight) 79,619,512 65,497,279 49,956,475
Nominal Revenues
96,674,423 97,934,270 90,992,393
Constant (1999) Revenues
84,489,706 85,074,085 76,800,650

2007
67,212,138
60,584,026
106,206,490
84,241,285

6.2.3.3.1 Landings and Revenues by Permit Category
From FY 2001 to FY 2003, the highest total landings were brought in by Fleet DAS and Open
Access vessels (Table 59). From FY 2004 to FY 2007, the highest total landings were seen in the
Individual DAS, Handgear B, and Open Access fisheries. Individual DAS vessels, and Fleet DAS
through FY 2003, also landed a substantially greater percentage of total landings than vessels in
other categories. This proportion of total landings attributed to vessels in Fleet DAS and
Individual DAS categories decreased slightly from 49% in FY 2001 to 45% in FY 2007, with the
FY 2007 landings consisting only of the Individual DAS category. Other categories increased
their contribution to total landings during these years, notably Large Mesh Individual DAS
vessels which expanded their total landings from 1,241,612 pounds in FY 2001 to 4,144,467
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

324

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery

pounds in FY 2007. Total and groundfish (large-mesh regulated multispecies) landings have
generally demonstrated a negative trend from FY 2001 to FY 2007 (Table 60). Groundfish
landings decreased, on average, 7.2% annually during that period. Groundfish revenues also
decreased 36.9% during that time period. Both groundfish landings and groundfish revenue saw
an incremental decrease in each year from the preceding one, except in 2007, when both landings
and revenue were slightly increased from 2006 levels.
Groundfish landings generally declined in each permit group, with the exception that some
groups saw a spike in landings in FY 2004, including Individual DAS, Hook Gear, Large Mesh
Individual DAS, and Handgear. Individual DAS permits were by far the leading contributor to
groundfish landings, with 96.8% of all landings in FY 2006. That category also appears to have
experienced the least steep decrease in groundfish landings, although several groups fluctuated
more severely. As discussed previously, these changes primarily represent shifts in participation
among different permit categories rather than extensive movement in and out of the fishery
entirely. Vessels in the Small Vessel Exemption category contributed least to groundfish landings
in all years. To maintain confidentiality, landings associated with the small number of Small
Vessel Exemption vessels were not reported.
Total revenue trends were similar to those for total landings across permit categories, but perhaps
slightly more constant. Across all years, Individual DAS vessels were more financially dependent
on groundfish than vessels in other permit categories. Groundfish revenues accounted for, on
average, 37% of total revenues in this permit category.
The total number of vessels active in the groundfish fishery, or those which landed at least one
pound of groundfish in each of the given fishing years is reported in Table 58. These vessels are
associated with groundfish landings (Table 60) and groundfish revenues (Table 62). The number
of total active vessels (those which landed at least one pound of any species) generally trended
downward from FY 2004 to FY 2007. Active Individual DAS vessels decreased each year, with
76.7% of the number of active vessels in FY 2007 compared with FY 2004. Large Mesh
Individual DAS and Handgear A vessels both decreased substantially, with FY 2007 seeing
37.0% and 52.2% of FY 2004 levels in FY 2007, respectively. The total numbers of vessels active
in the groundfish fishery decreased an average of 7.5% per year across that time period.

Table 58 - Total number of multispecies vessels landing groundfish by permit category, FY 2004-FY
2007
Year
2004
2005
2006
2007
Individual DAS
691
637
590
530
Fleet DAS
Small Vessel Exemption
2
1
2
4
Hook Gear
34
32
20
18
Combination Vessel
16
16
10
16
Large Mesh Ind. DAS
27
22
16
10
Large Mesh Fleet DAS
1
Handgear Open Access
0
Handgear - A
44
32
26
23
Handgear - B
75
63
59
73
Other Open Access
65
57
64
65
Total
955
860
787
739

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

325

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery

Table 59 - Total Landings (in lbs.) of Multispecies Vessels by Permit Category, FY 2001-FY 2007
Permit Category
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Individual DAS
67,082,886
60,555,258
55,545,268 242,216,070 203,926,862
Fleet DAS
231,268,872 188,132,355 186,143,621
604,024
Small Vessel Exemption
Conf.
Conf.
Conf.
Conf.
Conf.
Hook-Gear
2,770,964
1,675,134
1,818,524
8,659,676
2,879,912
Combination Vessel
12,926,924
13,218,161
17,743,414
14,555,114
11,253,416
Large Mesh Individual DAS
1,241,612
671,808
741,089
12,537,228
4,882,785
Large Mesh Fleet DAS
7,070,364
6,743,331
7,050,035
150,183
Handgear Permit
126,761,476
72,361,485 143,865,251
37,656
Handgear A
2,237,854
29,716,819
Handgear B
150,143,857 147,995,484
Other Open Access Combined
157,128,632
96,729,305 100,873,093 119,729,642
97,673,044
Grand Total
606,251,730 440,086,837 513,780,295 550,871,304 498,328,322

2006
197,040,056

2007
197,707,109

Conf.
1,208,856
12,057,866
4,304,701

119,178
1,067,947
10,342,028
4,144,467

17,976,142
113,703,477
90,880,903
437,172,001

7,607,092
125,831,090
96,170,025
442,988,936

Table 60 – Groundfish landings of multispecies vessels by permit category, FY 2001-FY 2007
Permit Category
Individual DAS
Fleet DAS
Small Vessel Exemption
Hook-Gear
Combination Vessel
Large Mesh Individual DAS
Large Mesh Fleet DAS
Handgear Permit
Handgear A
Handgear B
Open Access Combined
Grand Total

2001
50,301,967
45,007,575
Conf.
1,098,050
3,820,879
630,967
2,048,611
454,907

49,841
103,412,797

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

2002
40,864,820
38,017,046
Conf.
528,342
2,465,981
301,661
1,050,912
178,787

69,615
83,477,164

326

2003
38,216,342
37,911,377
Conf.
478,978
2,839,056
526,329
777,373
136,244

137,776
81,023,475

2004
71,419,801
95,194
Conf.
627,033
1,884,694
1,513,209
10,308

2005
61,129,151

2006
46,431,701

2007
57,383,983

Conf.
517,076
845,275
667,854

Conf.
183,794
397,290
589,244

1,848
192,508
557,921
162,909

243,634
68,427
100,601
75,962,901

30,436
49,167
58,987
63,297,946

122,380
45,221
198,214
47,967,844

78,723
150,401
115,879
58,644,172

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery

Table 61 – Total revenues by multispecies vessels by permit category, FY 2001-FY 2007
Permit Category
2001
2002
2003
2004
Individual DAS
63,005,926
61,734,890
52,738,496 161,345,808
Fleet DAS
120,721,087 117,177,937 112,644,270
597,359
Small Vessel Exemption
Conf.
Conf.
Conf.
Conf.
Hook-Gear
2,854,182
2,676,627
2,445,595
3,802,250
Combination Vessel
27,857,876
31,513,079
33,708,899
40,408,428
Large Mesh Individual DAS
1,389,315
780,598
559,777
6,395,127
Large Mesh Fleet DAS
7,963,406
7,431,761
6,403,526
107,855
Handgear Permit
28,884,772
24,452,876
28,581,585
51,059
Handgear A
1,331,175
Handgear B
28,537,771
Other Open Access Combined
140,342,092 158,078,405 185,176,530 244,899,234
Grand Total
393,018,657 403,846,172 422,258,677 487,476,065

2005
180,720,578

2006
162,456,700

2007
148,031,135

Conf.
3,847,800
47,519,266
6,673,046

Conf.
3,632,903
45,235,888
4,811,600

146,985
2,984,595
38,476,835
3,618,879

4,869,667
58,199,971
283,197,167
585,027,495

4,011,817
55,049,963
256,177,755
531,376,627

3,029,108
55,395,127
258,103,859
509,786,521

Table 62 – Groundfish revenues by multispecies vessels by permit category, FY 2001-FY 2007
Permit Category
Individual DAS
Fleet DAS
Small Vessel Exemption
Hook-Gear
Combination Vessel
Large Mesh Individual DAS
Large Mesh Fleet DAS
Handgear Permit
Handgear A
Handgear B
Open Access Combined
Grand Total

2001
47,329,837
43,106,389
Conf.
1,258,845
3,802,377
497,441
2,129,146
463,326

44,302
98,631,663

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

2002
45,305,967
44,351,025
Conf.
762,310
2,903,858
275,430
1,336,680
243,824

82,275
95,261,368

327

2003
36,299,927
39,424,405
Conf.
645,903
2,958,558
348,782
839,130
170,583

127,506
80,814,794

2004
65,626,188
60,968
Conf.
824,186
1,752,166
1,380,613
11,148

2005
68,122,719

2006
60,126,373

2007
62,490,491

Conf.
820,322
1,195,012
757,251

Conf.
338,831
535,507
552,363

2,987
337,265
729,559
201,407

177,697
90,013
105,319
70,028,298

46,031
76,550
83,439
71,101,325

117,683
66,820
294,492
62,032,069

108,658
205,424
168,277
62,244,069

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery

Table 63 – Average regulated groundfish revenues per permit by permit type, FY 2004-FY 2007
Permit Category
2004
2005
2006
2007
Individual DAS
94,973
106,943
101,909
117,907
Fleet DAS
Small Vessel Exemption
Conf.
Conf.
Conf.
747
Hook Gear
24,241
25,635
16,942
18,737
Combination Vessel
109,510
74,688
53,551
45,597
Large Mesh
49,308
34,421
34,523
20,141
Handgear Open Access
Handgear – A
4,039
1,438
4,526
4,724
Handgear – B
1,200
1,215
1,133
2,814
Other Open Access
1,620
1,464
4,601
2,589
Total
73,328
82,676
78,821
86,934

Summary
The total number of multispecies permits declined from each year, for a total 23% decline
between FY 2004 and FY 2007. The number of active groundfish vessels has also declined each
year from 1996 to FY 2001.
From FY 2001 to FY 2003, the highest total landings were brought in by Fleet DAS and Open
Access vessels. From FY 2004 through FY 2007, Individual DAS, Open Access, and Handgear
vessels brought the highest landings. Fleet DAS and Individual DAS vessels combined also
landed the large majority of groundfish landings in the entire time period. Vessels in the Small
Vessel Exemption category contributed least to groundfish landings in all years, but the numbers
were so low that they are considered confidential.
Total revenues trends did not closely mimic total landings trends across all years due to changes
in species composition of total landings and the differing market values of those species.
Groundfish revenues were variable across permit categories. For Individual DAS vessels, the
greatest groundfish revenues were seen in FY 2005, while groundfish revenues in the fishery
overall declined steadily from FY 2001-FY 2006 and increased only slightly in FY 2007. Across
all years, Individual DAS vessels were more financially dependent on groundfish than vessels in
other permit categories. This is also reflected in day-at-sea use by Individual DAS vessels, which
generally used the greatest percentage of their allocated category DAS in each year from FY 2001
to FY 2007.

6.2.3.3.2 Landings and Revenues by Vessel Length Class
Data on fishing activity were compiled by length classes. Based on the recommendations of the
NEFMC Groundfish Oversight Committee for Amendment 13, four distinct ranges were
identified as separate vessel length classes.
Length Class 1: Vessels less than 30 feet in length
Length Class 2: Vessels 30 feet to less than 50 feet in length
Length Class 3: Vessels 50 feet to less than 75 feet in length
Length Class 4: Vessels greater than or equal to 75 feet in length

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

328

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery

Data Caveats
The vessel length data were gathered from the vessels’ permit applications for each fishing year
and compiled on a trip-by-trip basis. The total number of vessels by length class was generated
from the NMFS permit database and includes all active and inactive permitted multispecies
vessels with reported lengths. Data are reported since FY 2001.
Landings and Revenues by Vessel Length Class
Vessels greater than 75 feet in length demonstrated the greatest total decrease in landings between
the years FY 2001 and FY 2007. However, total revenues for those vessels stayed roughly
constant. Revenues for other length classes were also relatively constant, with most classes
peaking in revenue in FY 2005 (vessels less than 30 feet in length peaked in FY 2004). Revenues
in FY 2007 were similar to those in FY 2001 for all length classes except 50 to 75 feet, which had
a FY 2007 level at 73.9% of that in FY 2001.
Groundfish landings generally decreased across all length classes each year between FY 2001 and
FY 2006, and increased in FY 2007 (Table 66). Vessels 75 feet and greater had the highest total
landings each year by a large margin. However, vessels 50-75 feet were responsible for the
highest groundfish landings in every year except FY 2005 and FY 2007, when vessels greater
than 75 feet had the most landings. After those two groups, vessels 30-50 feet had the most
groundfish landings, followed by vessels under 30 feet, which had substantially fewer.
Groundfish landings of vessels 75 feet and greater decreased by 38.2%, those by vessels 50-75
feet decreased by 54.8%, 30-50 feet decreased by 28.1%, and the smallest vessels saw landings
decline by 91.6% between FY 2001 and FY 2007.
Groundfish revenues decreased each year in each length class, with the exceptions of FY 2005,
which saw slightly higher revenues than FY 2004 for vessels of 30-50 feet and FY 2007, which
saw slightly higher revenues for vessel 30-50 feet and 75+ feet.
Vessels less than 30 feet saw the biggest decrease in revenue each year, with an 88.8% change
between FY 2001 and FY 2007. The 30-50 foot vessels saw the smallest decreases each year
between FY 2005 and FY 2007, while vessels over 75 feet had the least decreasing revenues from
FY 2001 through FY 2004.
Summary
The largest vessels demonstrated the greatest annual percent decreases in total landings on
average from FY 2001 to FY 2007. However, revenues for these vessels stayed fairly constant
during that same time period. All length classes experienced relative constancy in total revenues
through FY 2007, with the exception of 75+ foot vessels, which saw an overall increase.
Groundfish landings generally decreased across all length classes between FY 2001 and FY 2007.
The largest vessels, while making up the smallest percentage of total vessels, were responsible for
the highest total landings in every year from FY 2001 to FY 2007. However, vessels 50 to less
than 75 feet contributed to the highest groundfish landings in each year except FY 2005 and FY
2007, with vessels 75 feet and greater taking the lead in those two years and following closely in
the others. The smallest vessels contributed the least groundfish landings in all years from FY
2001 to FY 2007, and also showed the greatest percent decrease in those landings. Groundfish
revenues essentially decreased in all length classes from FY 2001 to FY 2007, with the exception
of a slight increase in revenue for vessels 20 to 50 feet in length from FY 2004 to FY 2005 and
slight increases for two categories in FY 2007.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

329

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery
Table 64 – Total Landings (in lbs.) by Multispecies Vessels by Length Class, FY 2001-FY 2007
Length Group
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Less than 30
1,495,389
1,014,569
803,224
1,762,725
1,583,527
1,209,049
30 to less than 50
52,543,920
45,049,181
48,202,346
47,152,085
47,212,707
47,103,674
50 to less than 75 151,531,804 136,713,383 129,204,193 172,834,208 113,620,241 107,944,193
75 and over
400,687,205 257,309,891 335,571,309 329,131,596 335,943,482 280,935,636
Grand Total
606,258,318 440,087,024 513,781,072 550,880,614 498,359,957 437,192,552

2007
839,026
53,155,303
112,217,122
276,777,485
442,988,936

Table 65 – Constant Total Revenues by Multispecies Vessels by Length Class, FY 2001-FY 2007
Length Group
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Less than 30
1,426,091
1,120,241
1,173,094
1,969,399
1,494,803
1,677,300
30 to less than 50
57,010,963
52,429,810
50,153,461
50,536,025
77,855,390
70,126,484
50 to less than 75 122,110,693 126,424,416 127,033,443 134,992,516 156,895,340 144,967,040
75 and over
212,478,201 223,871,947 243,899,903 299,988,103 348,882,156 314,645,068
Grand Total
393,025,947 403,846,414 422,259,902 487,486,042 585,127,690 531,415,891

2007
1,600,751
69,293,709
131,991,842
306,900,219
509,786,521

Table 66 – Groundfish Landings (in lbs.) by Multispecies Vessels by Length Class, FY 2001-FY 2007
Length Group
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Less than 30
839,251
396,167
354,991
482,878
145,521
111,514
70,572
30 to less than 50
23,905,156 17,927,058 18,436,523 15,305,823 15,187,939 13,507,713 17,196,345
50 to less than 75
43,518,214 34,342,719 32,791,598 30,707,862 23,931,730 18,228,960 19,685,786
75 and over
35,155,672 30,811,275 29,440,367 29,467,357 24,034,939 16,120,399 21,691,469
Grand Total
103,418,293 83,477,219 81,023,479 75,963,920 63,300,129 47,968,586 58,644,172

Table 67 – Constant Groundfish Revenues by Multispecies Vessels by Length Class, FY 2001-FY
2007
Length Group
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Less than 30
942,778
570,899
461,981
521,190
198,993
133,510
30 to less than 50
23,409,792 21,922,821 19,423,441 16,633,176 18,179,777 16,469,091
50 to less than 75
40,340,343 37,897,022 32,001,358 26,182,897 26,170,241 23,571,617
75 and over
33,944,381 34,870,693 28,928,019 26,692,254 26,553,928 21,858,434
Grand Total
98,637,293 95,261,434 80,814,800 70,029,516 71,102,940 62,032,652

2007
105,316
18,479,430
22,036,277
23,623,046
64,244,069

6.2.3.3.3 Landings and Revenues by Gear Type
Many different gear types are used to harvest the resource in the multispecies fishery. These gears
are described in detail under “Gear Descriptions” (Section 6.1.6 of the Amendment 16 EFH
DEIS). The four primary gear types in the multispecies fishery, as determined from the monetary
value of landings associated with that type of gear, are the bottom trawl, bottom longline, hook
and line and sink gillnet.
Vessel owners are required to report their primary gear type on their multispecies permit
application. On each Vessel Trip Report, the permit holder is instructed to list the actual gear used
to harvest the landed catch on that trip. The gear actually used to catch the fish landed may or
may not coincide with the primary gear designation on the vessel’s permit application.
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

330

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery

Data Caveats
Primary Gear Types and Landings by Gear
Total and groundfish landings in this section are reported by the gear type physically used to
harvest the fish landed. In some cases, the gear used to harvest the catch on a specific trip was not
equivalent to the gear reported by the vessel owner as the primary gear type.
“All other” gears represent permits that did not report a primary gear type or permits indicating
actual gear types that do not fall into any of the specific categories listed. For landings and
revenues, the values associated with the “other” gear category may also represent aggregate
records reported by dealers that include multiple trips of one or more vessels.
Landings and Revenues by Gear Used
Between FY 2001 and FY 2007, bottom trawls accounted for an average of 34% of the total
landings in each year (Table 68). Following bottom trawls, the next top contributor to total
landings were midwater trawls. In 2003, midwater trawls accounted for the greatest percentage of
total landings by gear type. On average, the midwater trawl accounted for 30% of the total
landings each year. Bottom trawl also accounted for most groundfish landings, while the sink
gillnet was the second highest contributor to groundfish landings in 2001-2007. From 2001 to
2007, groundfish landings by all gear types generally decreased; with the exception of gillnet
landings, which were roughly even, and the “other” category, which was highly variable. Bottom
trawl groundfish landings in 2007 were only 46.3% of the 2001 level. Total revenues trends
mirrored changes in total landings (Table 69). Total revenues increased substantially for bottom
trawls and bottom longline, as did landings for those gear types.
Summary
Between FY 2001 and FY 2007, bottom trawls and midwater trawls accounted for a large
majority of total landings in each year. Bottom trawls, followed by sink gillnets, accounted for the
majority of groundfish landings. Total bottom trawl landings decreased in nearly every year
except FY 2004, and groundfish landings by bottom trawls decreased significantly in every year
over this time period as well. Sink gillnets landed the second highest percentage of groundfish,
and both total and groundfish landings by gillnets were variable in the years FY 2001 to FY 2007.
Bottom longlines ranked third in contribution to groundfish landings from FY 2001 until FY
2004, while handlines took the third place category (aside from the “other” category) from FY
2005 through FY 2007. Revenue trends generally mimicked landings trends from FY 2001 to FY
2007.
DAS use generally increased from FY 2001 to FY 2007 for each of the four primary gear types.
Bottom trawls and sink gillnets used the greatest percentage of allocated DAS from FY 2001 to
FY 2007, while hook and line and bottom longline vessels utilized the smallest percentage of
days allocated.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

331

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery

Table 68 – Total Landings by Multispecies Vessels by Gear Used, FY 2001-FY 2007
Gear Type
2001
2002
2003
2004
Bottom Trawl
195,992,377
179,789,028 176,247,913
208,338,991
Bottom Longline
7,278,587
4,734,742
4,249,204
10,753,969
Handline
2,029,456
1,162,090
1,384,449
23,201,144
Sink Gillnet
33,552,326
28,087,121
36,058,742
23,574,454
Midwater Trawl (incl. Pair)
250,058,561
124,735,845 186,731,452
110,915,255
Shrimp Trawl
1,369,085
3,104,192
2,634,737
356,845
Scallop Dredge
43,247,915
45,266,061
52,766,019
9,848,621
Lobster Trap
4,845,280
4,467,043
4,274,235
467,676
All Other
67,884,731
48,740,902
49,434,321
163,423,659
Grand Total
606,258,318
440,087,024 513,781,072
550,880,614

2005
160,900,699
7,199,368
12,821,990
28,933,039
157,938,719
661,406
14,396,264
2,356,615
113,151,857
498,359,957

2006
142,688,719
2,381,495
4,154,438
25,186,771
114,912,196
1,834,648
14,683,209
2,511,930
128,839,146
437,192,552

2007
123,799,904
2,875,352
5,985,994
29,308,595
106,555,960
2,818,288
14,125,605
3,447,414
154,071,824
442,988,936

Table 69 – Total Revenues by Multispecies Vessels by Gear Used, FY 2001-FY 2007
Gear Type
2001
2002
2003
2004
Bottom Trawl
159,707,220 159,907,512 148,349,751 131,291,504
Bottom Longline
6,902,400
4,857,510
3,975,729
10,780,452
Handline
2,464,483
1,710,137
3,325,285
12,173,621
Sink Gillnet
32,598,537
28,585,146
27,652,098
20,716,466
Midwater Trawl (incl. Pair)
15,140,883
8,287,353
12,794,603
10,104,041
Shrimp Trawl
2,945,162
4,205,916
1,689,778
906,078
Scallop Dredge
145,774,673 171,670,973 198,494,372
52,225,265
Lobster Trap
12,015,343
11,042,575
10,757,238
1,125,364
All Other
15,477,244
13,579,292
15,221,048 248,163,252
Grand Total
393,025,947 403,846,414 422,259,902 487,486,042

2005
120,112,958
11,770,691
8,877,416
32,083,345
16,401,457
186,459
91,194,920
11,408,839
293,091,605
585,127,690

2006
112,153,218
5,578,215
4,673,652
24,265,770
10,463,464
1,186,078
78,817,853
10,405,449
283,872,191
531,415,891

2007
95,337,271
6,270,107
4,665,844
25,772,266
8,744,783
3,286,048
73,713,026
13,654,031
278,343,145
509,786,521

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

332

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery

Table 70 – Groundfish Landings by Multispecies Vessels by Gear Used, FY 2001-FY 2007
Gear Type
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Bottom Trawl
84,308,388 71,063,869 67,531,780 53,405,649 42,809,308
Bottom Longline
2,755,125
1,017,788
1,128,411
2,042,216
1,583,607
Handline
1,646,085
758,320
567,999
1,695,734
1,960,885
Sink Gillnet
13,460,168 10,390,033 11,656,348
8,844,219 10,448,082
Midwater Trawl (incl. Pair)
0
0
0
770,843
40,625
Shrimp Trawl
2,015
1,243
4,001
Scallop Dredge
341,310
146,469
11,645
55,148
448,987
Lobster Trap
11,478
18,279
7,261
19,843
796
All Other
893,724
81,218
116,034
9,130,268
6,007,839
Grand Total
103,418,293 83,477,219 81,023,479 75,963,920 63,300,129

Table 71 – Groundfish Revenues by Multispecies Vessels by Gear Used, FY 2001-FY 2007
NEGEAR
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Bottom Trawl
80,407,068 80,426,445 67,609,349 47,842,264 48,311,017
Bottom Longline
3,213,920
1,511,030
1,370,218
2,553,701
1,638,912
Handline
1,893,450
1,091,279
807,151
2,122,008
2,738,158
Sink Gillnet
11,980,657 11,952,152 10,887,616
8,037,747 10,607,098
Midwater Trawl (incl. Pair)
0
0
0
837,476
34,894
Shrimp Trawl
3,022
1,062
6,616
Scallop Dredge
292,846
140,308
11,840
68,002
345,663
Lobster Trap
10,076
18,289
8,778
26,497
1,365
All Other
836,254
120,870
113,232
8,541,822
7,425,834
Grand Total
98,637,293 95,261,434 80,814,800 70,029,516 71,102,940

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

333

2006
32,340,596
135,470
852,496
9,275,963
13,663
84
14,915
50,244
5,285,155
47,968,586

2006
43,339,021
229,876
1,402,637
9,633,514
22,529
140
20,301
34,148
7,350,486
62,032,652

2007
39,031,897
303,335
868,345
12,815,233
11,198
Conf.
48,190
Conf.
5,565,863
58,644,061

2007
42,713,114
448,629
1,334,871
11,996,375
14,679
Conf.
78,255
Conf.
7,658,021
64,243,943

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery

6.2.3.3.4 Landings and Revenues by Home Port State
Data Caveats
Home Port vs. Principal Port
In order to examine dependence on the groundfish fishery by state, the number of vessels and
their associated landings and revenues are reported primarily by home port state. Home port state
is indicated on the permit and represents the state in which the associated vessel resides. Principal
port is also indicated on the permit and represents the state in which the associated vessel reports
the majority of its landings. This is declared by the permit holder. Principal port and home port
may be one and the same or may differ. For example, a vessel which obtained its permit in
Stonington, Connecticut may land its catch in Point Judith, Rhode Island. In this case, the home
port state is Connecticut while the principal port state is Rhode Island. Principal port may also
differ from principal port of landing, which is determined based on the actual port in which the
vessel landed the majority of its catch over the year, as determined solely from dealer records. For
example, a vessel may declare a principal port of Portsmouth, New Hampshire with the intention
of landing the majority of its annual catch there but actually land a greater percentage of its catch
in Gloucester, Massachusetts within a given fishing year. Principal port is not discussed in the
Affected Human Environment of Amendment 16. However, where home port was not reported or
documented incorrectly, principal port state replaced home port state. The majority of the permits
were associated with a true home port.
“Other” States
States in which the number of vessels made up less than 1% of the total number in each fishing
year from FY 2001 to FY 2007 were combined into an “Other” category. The landings associated
with these states are very low.
Landings and Revenues by Home Port State
Total and groundfish landings were highest for Massachusetts vessels in all years from FY 2001
to FY 2007. Massachusetts landings declined from FY 2001 to FY 2002, reached a small peak in
FY 2004, and decreased through FY 2006, and rose slightly in FY 2007. Total Massachusetts
landings decreased 26% from FY 2001 to FY 2006. Rhode Island, New Jersey, and Maine
contributed the next highest total landings during this period. For vessels with home ports in
Rhode Island, landings decreased 49.5% from FY 2001 to FY 2002, then increased 12.5% in FY
2003 and stayed roughly constant through FY 2006 before dropping again in FY 2007. Total
landings by New Jersey vessels decreased 20.2% from FY 2001 to FY 2002, increased 9.4% in
FY 2003, and then decreased steadily through FY 2006 and rose slightly in FY 2007. In Maine,
landings decreased steadily from FY 2001 to FY 2006, with a 36% decrease in landings in those
years, and increased slightly in FY 2007.
Massachusetts groundfish landings decreased steadily from FY 2001 to FY 2007, with FY 2006
levels at 45% of FY 2001 levels. Groundfish landings in Maine decreased 24% between FY 2001
and FY 2002, and then remained relatively constant through FY 2005 before decreasing again in
FY 2006 to 56% of FY 2001 levels. Rhode Island made up the third highest percentage of the
total groundfish landings in FY 2001-FY 2006, with New Hampshire having slightly more
landings in FY 2007. New Hampshire groundfish landings remained relatively constant after
decreasing between FY 2001 and FY 2002, while Rhode Island landings stayed constant from FY
2001 until FY 2003 and then declined steadily each year thereafter. In FY 2006, New Hampshire
and Rhode Island landed 57% and 50% of their FY 2001 groundfish catch, respectively.
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

334

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery

Groundfish landings in all other states generally decreased except Connecticut, which fluctuated,
and New Jersey, which dropped 41% from FY 2001 to FY 2002 and stayed more constant than
most states thereafter. Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut all
saw increases in groundfish landings between FY 2006 and FY 2007.
For the most part, changes in total revenues did not closely reflect landings trends and have
fluctuated, increased, or stayed roughly constant in all states. Groundfish revenues, however,
decreased from FY 2001-FY 2006 in nearly every state except Connecticut, which fluctuated
greatly. Groundfish revenue in Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts and Connecticut increased
in FY 2007 from FY 2006 levels. Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Jersey and Maine generated
the greatest total revenues from FY 2001 to FY 2007 while Massachusetts, Maine, New
Hampshire and Rhode Island generated greatest groundfish revenues in those years. Permitted
multispecies vessels with home ports in some southern New England and mid-Atlantic states,
though contributing a high percentage of landings to the total, are less active than Maine and New
Hampshire vessels in the groundfish fishery. Those states may be more dependent on nongroundfish fisheries such as scup, squid, mackerel and butterfish. Maine and Massachusetts,
however, clearly are the largest stakeholders in the New England groundfish fishery with highest
groundfish landings and revenues in FY 2001 through FY 2007.
In examining groundfish revenues as a percentage of total revenues, however, Maine fisheries are
most heavily dependent on groundfish, with groundfish revenues making up 35% of total
revenues in FY 2006. The dependence of multispecies vessels from New Hampshire on
groundfish as a percent of total fishery revenues was second to that of Maine vessels, with 19% of
the revenues coming from groundfish. Massachusetts and Rhode Island each had 16% of
revenues being created by the groundfish fishery. It is important to note that although the home
ports of these vessels are associated with certain states, these are not necessarily the states in
which the vessels are landing their catches. Instead, examining fishing activity by home port state
is a means of predicting where the revenue streams are moving geographically.
Summary
Total and groundfish landings were highest for Massachusetts vessels in all years from FY 2001
to FY 2007. Landings in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and New Jersey, three of the four highest
contributing states to total landings, generally declined from about FY 2001 to around FY 2003,
increased slightly or stayed constant, declined again through FY 2006, and increased in FY 2007.
Maine, the other state with the greatest contribution to total landings, saw a steady decrease in
those landings from FY 2001 to FY 2006, and a slight increase in FY 2007. Massachusetts and
Rhode Island groundfish landings decreased fairly steadily from FY 2001 to FY 2006, with
Massachusetts increasing in FY 2007. New Hampshire and Maine groundfish landings also saw
decreases, but mixed with periods of constancy. Groundfish landings also generally decreased
each year in all other states except New Jersey (which decreased through FY 2002 and then
remained constant) and Connecticut, which fluctuated.
For the most part, changes in revenues do not reflect landings trends and have generally
fluctuated, increased, or stayed roughly constant in all states. Groundfish revenues, however,
decreased in nearly every state except Connecticut, which fluctuated greatly, through FY 2006
and rose slightly in several states in FY 2007. Maine fisheries are most heavily dependent on
groundfish, followed by New Hampshire fisheries.
In general, all of the New England states increased their use of allocated DAS. Active vessels in
Maine, New Hampshire, and, in recent years, Massachusetts have used a higher percentage of
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

335

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery

allocated DAS than vessels in other states since FY 2001. Active vessels in New York and New
Jersey have used a lower percentage of allocated DAS than vessels in other states since FY 2001.

Table 72 – Total landings of multispecies vessels by home port state, FY 2001-FY 2007
Home Port State
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
ME
78,724,996
59,323,936
57,293,476
54,335,286
53,307,720
NH
13,367,647
5,642,063
12,581,323
40,061,562
27,599,192
MA
283,227,205 198,514,601 255,231,528 266,992,307 240,251,664
RI
75,348,434
38,070,333
43,504,270
45,785,822
46,260,462
CT
363,090
439,728
1,436,588
1,828,590
2,483,749
NY
30,724,670
27,716,785
26,217,127
22,378,153
18,671,348
NJ
88,004,781
70,218,101
77,464,613
74,989,884
73,607,227
DE
1,263,676
885,613
973,135
1,221,721
1,381,627
MD
1,124,305
1,109,931
911,642
1,090,051
1,091,078
VA
11,467,791
11,450,314
11,345,162
11,748,455
7,476,507
NC
19,079,500
23,031,633
22,944,851
26,319,436
22,513,372
FL
507,722
531,941
569,839
699,280
531,931
Other
3,054,501
3,152,045
3,307,518
3,430,067
3,184,080
Grand Total
606,258,318 440,087,024 513,781,072 550,880,614 498,359,957

2006
50,063,714
14,189,368
208,220,796
47,737,012
1,598,696
18,133,476
63,994,508
1,291,219
1,085,870
8,569,082
19,574,812
613,777
2,120,222
437,192,552

Table 73 – Groundfish landings by multispecies vessels by home port state, FY 2001-FY 2007
Home Port State
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
ME
15,319,317 11,649,857 12,854,761 12,015,318 11,531,491
8,544,873
NH
4,712,053
3,313,107
3,445,717
3,262,416
3,065,318
2,679,237
MA
67,392,307 54,942,388 50,527,509 49,674,945 39,614,736 30,536,323
RI
7,239,855
7,225,382
7,596,776
6,101,959
5,294,117
3,622,723
CT
115,152
206,295
205,084
164,476
96,101
159,799
NY
4,199,723
3,589,125
3,373,185
1,722,828
1,315,533
1,000,326
NJ
854,198
502,831
658,452
681,537
599,701
556,646
DE
795,924
510,232
520,868
738,535
669,252
456,846
MD
2,115
2,437
423
459
39
439
VA
847,588
149,890
271,458
166
343
NC
1,254,276
866,766
1,010,968
1,356,422
1,113,498
411,144
FL
Conf.
Conf.
Other
2,057,355
1,554,819
1,674,084
734,577
0
Conf.
Grand Total
104,789,863 84,513,129 82,139,285 76,453,638 63,300,129 47,968,356

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

336

2007
54,070,207
21,726,043
210,129,498
43,897,683
2,487,205
19,148,734
64,853,141
786,599
1,122,030
7,721,828
15,158,525
606,366
1,281,077
442,988,936

2007
11,206,799
3,915,885
37,530,105
3,564,536
189,617
959,129
518,097
383,076
Conf.
16,938
359,947
0
58,644,129

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery
Table 74 - Total revenues by multispecies vessels by home port state, FY 2001-FY 2007
Home Port State
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
ME
26,626,551
24,710,117
23,252,319
24,778,275
29,174,304
NH
8,428,811
7,087,426
6,097,642
9,159,192
18,301,880
MA
195,349,374 204,157,832 203,395,819 225,750,058 276,523,602
RI
30,777,543
28,525,346
31,448,563
30,242,667
33,294,134
CT
611,048
730,789
2,994,566
5,065,869
7,016,385
NY
26,398,229
25,128,722
23,437,366
20,882,126
23,132,279
NJ
44,292,729
47,745,282
57,987,717
77,069,709
98,205,867
DE
MD
980,287
898,948
861,623
1,066,747
2,816,776
VA
30,649,471
32,985,010
35,855,793
44,616,140
42,132,583
NC
20,069,579
24,660,941
28,587,578
36,901,254
43,366,772
FL
1,576,335
1,933,314
2,103,079
3,281,641
3,525,639
Other
5,989,691
4,245,209
5,066,585
7,204,746
5,709,251
Grand Total
391,749,648 402,808,936 421,088,649 486,018,426 583,199,472

2006
26,237,018
13,349,220
253,381,480
34,836,424
4,821,562
21,249,142
91,877,333
2,404,277
34,936,780
37,128,899
3,171,669
6,426,242
529,820,046

Table 75 – Groundfish revenues by multispecies vessels by home port state, FY 2001-FY 2007
Home Port State
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
ME
14,080,005 12,309,933 11,464,247 10,620,918 12,035,740
9,302,543
NH
4,343,507
3,715,925
3,318,173
3,205,983
3,086,101
2,542,924
MA
65,020,184 64,152,683 52,129,610 47,096,109 46,217,349
40,920,743
RI
6,971,015
8,150,757
7,457,243
4,790,717
5,586,243
5,455,708
CT
99,883
214,561
229,002
161,469
89,676
266,773
NY
4,066,979
4,120,634
3,352,344
1,594,984
1,632,795
1,490,096
NJ
708,091
511,135
719,633
686,845
634,854
872,590
DE
792,687
550,411
531,387
732,081
797,839
563,008
MD
2,415
2,864
160
443
15
1,029
VA
833,612
209,756
246,452
116
203
0
NC
1,108,424
851,153
888,326
914,520
1,022,124
616,975
FL
Conf.
Conf.
0
0
0
Other
610,491
470,625
478,117
225,332
0
Conf.
Grand Total
98,637,293 95,260,436 80,814,694 69,388,232 71,102,940
62,032,388

6.2.3.3.5 Landings and Revenues by Port Group
Amendment 13 identified port groups that participated in the groundfish fishery and described
changes in landings and revenues over time for those port groups. This section updates that
information for the period FY 2001 – FY 2007. Amendment 13 was adopted in FY 2004, and FW
42 in the middle of FY 2007. These data reflect landings in a port group by vessels with a
multispecies permit, regardless of the homeport state of the vessel that landed the catch. It does
not include landings of groundfish by vessels that did not have a groundfish permit (primarily
state registered and permitted vessels fishing in state waters).
New Bedford/Fairhaven is the port group with the largest total landings and total revenues, driven
by the scallop fishery. In FY 2001, New Bedford/Fairhaven led all port groups in groundfish
landings and revenues, followed by Lower Midcoast Maine (which includes Portland, ME), and
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

337

2007
28,500,653
14,907,755
241,560,702
28,625,153
5,862,407
17,476,226
96,093,461
947,335
1,731,485
28,942,471
36,891,040
3,069,369
5,178,464
509,786,521

2007
10,171,625
3,508,104
42,524,732
4,841,772
281,002
1,282,824
807,000
328,244
Conf.
31,984
466,700
0
0
63,745,304

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery

Gloucester and the North Shore of Massachusetts. By FY 2004, Gloucester and the North Shore
had surpassed Lower Midcoast Maine, but New Bedford/Fairhaven remained the top groundfish
port. This changed in FY 2006, when Gloucester and the North Shore and New
Bedford/Fairhaven were essentially equal. In FY 2007, Gloucester and the North Shore replaced
New Bedford/Fairhaven as the leading groundfish port and Boston edged Lower Midcoast Maine
as the third larges port. All four of these ports showed an increase in groundfish revenues (in
constant 1999 dollars) from FY 2006 to FY 2007. Groundfish revenues for Gloucester and the
North Shore (+26%) and Boston MA (+52%) increased in FY 2004 compared to FY 2007, while
those in New Bedford/Fairhaven (-23%) and Lower Midcoast Maine (-45%) declined. Of the four
leading ports, Gloucester and the North Shore and Boston saw an increase in groundfish revenues
in FY 2007 compared to FY 2001.
For smaller groundfish ports the changes are mixed. FY 2007 revenues were lower than FY 2004
revenues in Southern Maine (-65%), Upper Midcoast Maine (-67%), Coastal New Hampshire
(-33%) and the Cape and Islands (-21%). They were higher for Downeast Maine, Coastal Rhode
Island (+70%), Long Island (+94%), and Northern Coastal New Jersey (+36%).
Overall, seventy-eight percent of groundfish revenues were landed in Massachusetts port groups
in FY 2007, compared to seventy-two percent in FY 2004 and FY 2001. Twenty-nine percent
were landed in Gloucester and the North Shore, compared to nineteen percent in FY 2001. The
changes since FY 2001 reflect a shift in groundfish landings to the Gloucester and North Shore
area, and away from New Bedford/Fairhaven and Lower Midcoast Maine. The declines in the
latter two ports may be due to a combination of reduced opportunities to target offshore stocks as
regulations restricted landings of GB yellowtail flounder, GB cod, GB winter flounder, and
SNE/MA yellowtail flounder, as well as increased costs for fishing in certain areas. These
increased costs are both monetary (e.g. fuel and other expenses) and regulatory, as some areas
became subject to differential DAS beginning in FY 2006.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

338

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery

Table 76 – Total landings by multispecies vessels by landing state, FY 2001-FY 2007
Landing State Port Group
2001
2002
2003
ME
Downeast ME
607,957
512,139
1,370,037
Lower Midcoast ME
86,291,510
48,763,435
57,138,362
Southern ME
409,035
424,372
374,822
Upper Midcoast ME
45,475,509
20,846,839
21,739,636
ME Total
132,784,011
70,546,785
80,622,857
NH
Coastal NH
13,944,028
18,220,967
23,343,645
MA
Boston & South Shore
10,456,302
9,540,137
8,317,949
Cape & Islands
18,744,749
14,965,246
12,666,623
Gloucester & North Shore 114,314,736
55,069,635
98,413,636
New Bedford Coast
81,867,937
82,353,878 101,154,939
MA Total
225,495,383 161,946,593 220,635,534
RI
Coastal RI
79,009,995
49,433,268
50,983,080
RI Total
79,009,995
49,547,268
51,633,902
CT
Coastal CT
147,133
1,327,493
CT Total
147,133
1,327,493
NY
Long Island
22,558,582
20,447,040
18,375,148
NY Total
22,575,236
20,451,462
18,380,795
NJ
Northern Coastal NJ
24,017,723
22,609,450
19,766,855
Southern Coastal NJ
49,755,926
55,551,760
61,286,494
NJ Total
75,069,695
78,387,448
81,065,938
All Other
40,634,389
23,733,957
16,716,456
Total
606,258,318 440,087,024 513,781,072

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

339

2004
1,274,174
45,978,105
931,542
33,528,959
81,712,780
19,849,330
6,839,322
40,818,905
74,246,256
128,434,197
250,340,211
46,635,969
46,921,181
1,902,366
1,902,366
16,475,538
17,246,399
19,487,126
76,677,688
96,171,896
15,122,632
550,880,614

2005
999,460
38,458,095
695,755
21,042,891
61,196,201
18,297,245
7,855,272
12,819,653
115,774,868
110,614,144
247,063,937
51,379,551
51,725,779
3,397,472
3,397,472
13,402,603
13,977,386
19,236,557
56,524,469
75,761,026
14,091,326
498,359,957

2006
834,302
39,418,323
1,231,166
36,338,043
77,870,961
9,088,603
7,740,693
11,029,049
90,244,680
90,501,567
199,524,840
52,422,454
52,473,648
1,392,442
1,392,442
14,972,980
15,074,856
20,574,777
36,338,991
56,916,429
12,151,416
437,192,552

2007
1,858,545
27,954,654
1,177,854
35,614,097
68,638,751
7,940,577
10,286,150
11,433,592
84,519,555
107,137,964
213,377,261
42,639,491
42,737,257
1,271,979
1,271,979
15,148,057
15,576,195
19,021,190
51,890,087
70,936,472
22,510,444
442,988,936

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery

Table 77 – Groundfish landings by multispecies vessels by landing state, FY 2001-FY 2007
Landing State Port Group
2001
2002
2003
2004
ME
Downeast ME
Conf.
Conf.
0
0
Lower Midcoast ME
18,548,510 14,065,240 13,844,756 13,757,184
Southern ME
360,248
261,089
299,639
554,850
Upper Midcoast ME
1,776,235
1,495,340
1,453,711
645,998
ME Total
20,684,993 15,821,669 15,598,106 14,958,032
NH
Coastal NH
3,881,879
2,625,237
2,926,183
3,441,705
NH Total
3,881,879
2,625,237
2,926,183
3,441,705
MA
Boston & South Shore
5,974,231
5,907,806
5,650,258
4,969,629
Cape & Islands
8,140,487
4,992,069
4,346,465
3,736,423
Gloucester & North Shore
18,390,780 15,808,691 16,777,975 14,049,048
New Bedford Coast
40,733,040 34,236,222 31,697,104 31,340,361
MA Total
73,333,041 60,953,767 58,471,802 54,095,461
RI
Coastal RI
3,582,482
3,224,566
2,859,158
2,546,180
RI Total
3,582,482
3,224,566
2,859,158
2,546,180
CT
Coastal CT
6,003
127,971
CT Total
6,003
127,971
NY
Long Island NY
1,319,273
584,058
658,362
347,996
NY Total
1,319,373
585,804
658,362
349,106
NJ
Northern Coastal NJ
578,599
262,028
498,746
432,743
Southern Coastal NJ
5,217
2,238
1,278
2,691
NJ Total
584,016
264,266
500,024
435,434
All Other
3,601
1,620
3,841
10,031
Grand Total
103,389,385 83,476,929 81,023,479 75,963,920

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

340

2005
2,815
11,345,929
456,484
607,614
12,412,842
3,234,133
3,234,133
4,968,219
3,434,335
14,803,716
21,873,408
45,079,678
1,873,226
1,873,226
74,860
74,860
321,838
324,928
296,348
1,437
297,785
2,677
63,300,129

2006
1,780
6,878,560
271,646
50,527
7,204,272
3,166,754
3,166,754
4,331,004
1,959,291
13,979,388
13,953,838
34,223,521
2,295,496
2,295,782
69,453
69,453
552,296
552,296
450,506
4,406
454,912
1,596
47,968,586

2007
3,191
7,247,383
223,246
148,784
7,622,604
2,805,957
2,824,558
7,930,363
2,602,267
19,043,016
15,150,462
44,726,108
2,512,394
2,512,394
34,238
34,238
496,455
496,455
423,069
3,669
426,738
3,046,756
58,644,172

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery

Table 78 – Total revenue by multispecies vessels by landing state, FY 2001-FY 2007
Landing State Port Group
2001
2002
2003
ME
Downeast ME
1,841,756
1,861,686
1,565,858
Lower Midcoast ME
26,960,777
24,214,776
21,468,003
Southern ME
363,648
463,259
356,085
Upper Midcoast ME
5,531,333
3,988,340
3,648,877
ME Total
34,697,513
30,528,060
27,038,823
NH
Coastal NH
7,947,105
7,030,472
5,722,055
NH Total
7,947,105
7,030,472
5,722,055
MA
Boston & South Shore
8,784,135
10,806,196
9,205,128
Cape & Islands
19,566,974
16,027,211
15,035,559
Gloucester & North Shore
31,318,638
27,533,121
30,353,512
New Bedford Coast
137,369,392 153,726,636 155,861,625
MA Total
197,174,488 208,147,476 210,513,640
RI
Coastal RI
33,069,263
29,055,085
30,485,588
RI Total
33,069,263
29,065,109
30,523,314
CT
Coastal CT
14,839
1,817,751
CT Total
14,839
1,817,751
NY
Long Island
18,951,602
17,191,381
15,872,243
NY Total
18,963,405
17,196,949
15,877,382
NJ
Northern Coastal NJ
23,185,875
24,435,522
26,241,720
Southern Coastal NJ
26,453,501
28,914,474
37,040,064
NJ Total
50,531,813
53,566,294
63,299,858
All Other
50,642,359
58,297,215
67,467,079
Grand Total
393,025,947 403,846,414 422,259,902

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

341

2004
1,099,357
20,573,299
883,076
3,510,311
26,066,043
7,367,827
7,367,827
8,085,309
12,703,283
24,917,816
189,719,996
235,436,029
31,455,781
31,487,802
4,340,438
4,340,438
15,161,391
15,646,073
30,143,180
56,660,451
86,808,275
80,333,554
487,486,042

2005
1,790,079
18,494,977
802,925
4,087,171
25,175,153
16,241,046
16,241,046
11,386,626
22,963,765
38,421,389
243,432,295
316,204,075
43,545,682
43,590,727
6,300,880
6,300,880
17,015,234
17,384,383
39,263,607
52,831,196
92,094,803
68,136,624
585,127,690

2006
1,641,812
14,121,435
1,520,904
5,144,139
22,443,685
12,660,016
12,660,016
12,473,823
17,506,442
34,745,884
236,939,514
301,703,155
48,685,053
48,776,388
3,328,720
3,328,720
17,660,874
17,719,525
34,010,437
37,081,284
71,105,798
53,678,604
531,415,891

2007
2,602,007
11,371,640
1,150,217
6,097,392
21,728,031
12,172,296
12,191,413
13,801,858
15,175,811
35,213,714
219,970,264
284,161,648
32,197,558
32,417,630
3,168,412
3,168,412
15,477,766
15,724,025
34,029,971
52,103,173
86,266,281
54,129,082
509,786,521

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery

Table 79 – Groundfish revenues by multispecies vessels by landing state, FY 2001-FY 2007
Landing State Port Group
2001
2002
2003
2004
ME
Downeast ME
Conf.
Conf.
Lower Midcoast ME
17,072,559
14,930,932 12,514,645 12,248,116
Southern ME
316,120
291,448
259,009
580,519
Upper Midcoast ME
1,534,707
1,544,064
1,315,051
545,995
ME Total
18,923,386 16,766,444 14,088,704 13,374,630
NH
Coastal NH
3,673,222
3,131,381
2,826,691
3,373,548
NH Total
3,673,222
3,131,381
2,826,691
3,373,548
MA
Boston & South Shore
5,892,094
7,126,012
6,326,092
5,236,242
Cape & Islands
8,333,913
6,434,570
4,919,719
4,554,852
Gloucester & North Shore
18,324,684
18,678,838 18,002,399 14,678,112
New Bedford Coast
38,358,940
38,389,226 30,448,335 25,722,575
MA Total
71,013,353
70,644,631 59,696,545 50,191,781
RI
Coastal RI
3,299,551
3,703,841
2,871,007
2,087,821
RI Total
3,299,551
3,703,841
2,871,007
2,087,821
CT
Coastal CT
5,029
105,846
CT Total
5,029
105,846
NY
Long Island
1,214,417
696,270
739,255
373,996
NY Total
1,214,608
697,880
739,255
374,742
NJ
Northern Coastal NJ
485,725
313,869
584,559
507,672
Southern Coastal NJ
2,172
1,971
1,270
3,243
NJ Total
487,989
315,840
585,828
510,915
All Other
1,474
1,131
1,740
10,235
Grand Total
98,613,583
95,261,148 80,814,800 70,029,516

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

342

2005
11,443
11,724,020
452,935
677,830
12,866,229
3,134,910
3,134,910
5,950,222
4,692,072
17,186,493
24,001,568
51,830,356
2,338,379
2,338,379
77,576
77,576
439,623
440,875
411,796
1,314
413,110
1,504
71,102,940

2006
7,640
7,714,260
310,299
66,618
8,102,478
2,662,336
2,662,336
5,939,630
2,971,938
16,474,988
20,526,038
45,912,593
3,698,120
3,698,460
112,854
112,854
810,574
810,574
725,035
6,804
731,839
1,517
62,032,652

2007
13,113
6,730,880
205,649
181,213
7,130,854
2,268,581
2,280,575
7,945,214
3,604,305
18,424,213
19,828,780
49,802,512
3,550,362
3,550,362
58,504
58,504
726,750
726,750
690,755
3,215
693,970
541
64,244,069

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery

6.2.3.3.6 Landings and Revenues for Primary Fishing Ports
Amendment 13 identified eight primary groundfish ports (see section 6.5.5). This section
summarizes recent activity in those ports. All ports, except Boston and Eastern Long Island,
experienced a decline in the number of vessels with groundfish permits that landed regulated
groundfish. The largest decline was in Portsmouth, which experienced a 54 percent decline in the
number of permitted vessels landing regulated groundfish. Chatham/Harwichport experienced the
second largest decline, 49 percent, over this period. Gloucester and New Bedford/Fairhaven, two
other large ports, respectively experienced an 18 percent and a 9 percent decline.
Most ports experienced a decline in total landings between FY 2001 and FY 2007, with New
Bedford and Boston the sole exceptions. Boston, New Bedford/Fairhaven, and Gloucester saw an
increase in total revenues, while all other ports experienced a decline. Groundfish landings
increased in Gloucester and Boston, and declined in all other ports. Groundfish landings declined
59 percent in Portland and 63 percent in New Bedford/Fairhaven, and increased 10 percent in
Gloucester. Landings declined 70 percent in Chatham/Harwichport.
Table 80 – Number of vessels landing groundfish by port, FY 2004-FY 2007
Port
2004
2005
2006
2007
Portland ME
111
109
94
75
Portsmouth NH
41
25
27
19
Gloucester MA
202
203
168
166
Boston MA
24
29
24
32
Chatham/Harwichport MA
116
96
71
59
New Bedford/Fairhaven MA
182
158
153
165
Pt Judith RI
78
75
74
76
Eastern Long Island NY
69
62
79
74

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

343

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery

Table 81 – Total landings of multispecies vessels by landing port, FY 2001-FY 2007
Port
2001
2002
2003
2004
Portland ME
75,554,441
46,867,048
56,192,626
44,330,373
Portsmouth NH
4,290,244
2,639,830
5,447,754
3,622,453
Gloucester MA
112,723,002
53,717,051
97,359,033
73,215,332
Boston MA
7,835,595
6,245,445
5,619,980
5,449,678
Chatham/Harwichport MA
11,284,149
7,675,769
8,832,267
7,244,056
New Bedford/Fairhaven MA
80,549,608
81,598,357
99,595,979 109,957,181
Pt Judith RI
35,696,124
37,656,523
38,237,745
33,777,861
Eastern Long Island NY
20,953,207
18,458,011
16,745,447
14,291,397
Grand Total
348,886,370 254,858,034 328,030,831 291,888,331

2005
37,095,011
2,740,709
115,101,665
5,972,573
7,643,926
93,618,200
37,323,069
11,646,338
311,141,491

Table 82 – Groundfish landings by multispecies vessels by landing port, FY 2001-FY 2007
Port
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Portland ME
17,127,475 13,120,369 13,248,132 13,336,041 10,916,605
Portsmouth NH
2,292,399
1,249,678
1,574,926
1,604,137
1,162,945
Gloucester MA
16,995,463 14,766,480 15,911,942 13,755,265 14,612,245
Boston MA
4,179,936
4,023,466
3,614,632
3,846,639
3,777,135
Chatham/Harwichport
6,568,867
3,621,805
3,385,319
2,742,502
2,719,987
New Bedford/Fairhaven MA 40,730,450 34,234,312 31,693,078 31,339,886 21,862,612
Pt Judith RI
2,206,179
1,863,781
1,602,789
1,685,393
1,322,237
Eastern Long Island NY
1,163,630
546,352
615,226
337,261
291,363
Grand Total
91,264,399 73,426,243 71,646,044 68,647,124 56,665,129

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

344

2006
37,078,662
2,543,267
89,449,904
5,851,506
7,070,652
79,529,725
37,173,851
13,429,984
272,127,551

2006
6,424,222
1,243,795
13,811,580
3,440,531
1,547,488
13,943,843
1,895,221
492,911
42,799,591

2007
26,230,582
1,174,551
83,743,114
8,264,696
7,368,030
100,390,066
30,102,612
13,985,621
271,259,272

2007
7,022,856
539,957
18,852,948
6,876,819
1,950,982
15,150,104
1,988,119
456,849
52,838,634

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery

Table 83 – Total revenues by multispecies vessels by landing port, FY 2001-FY 2007
Port
2001
2002
2003
2004
Portland ME
24,492,427
22,408,828
20,431,170
19,590,657
Portsmouth NH
4,344,821
3,438,192
2,599,265
3,341,081
Gloucester MA
29,682,600
25,628,287
28,947,402
24,260,338
Boston MA
6,161,983
7,261,531
5,990,071
6,406,083
Chatham/Harwichport MA
9,196,598
6,974,961
7,523,908
7,536,609
New Bedford/Fairhaven MA 135,473,081 152,728,842 154,473,400 185,918,232
Pt Judith RI
21,622,547
20,459,470
21,103,854
22,396,590
Eastern Long Island NY
17,519,661
15,704,263
14,462,531
13,571,759
Grand Total
248,493,718 254,604,374 255,531,602 283,021,349

2005
17,342,076
2,868,611
36,273,126
7,559,978
10,559,562
228,493,307
26,501,537
15,217,042
344,815,238

Table 84 – Groundfish revenues by multispecies vessels by landing port, FY 2001-FY 2007
Port
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Portland ME
15,831,973 13,949,319 11,940,738 11,833,754 11,333,926
Portsmouth NH
1,954,723
1,287,453
1,272,101
1,372,199
993,292
Gloucester MA
16,909,239 17,328,174 16,926,894 14,306,231 16,904,699
Boston MA
4,213,026
4,861,423
3,854,806
3,947,175
4,308,760
Chatham/Harwichport MA
6,827,926
4,812,280
3,803,943
3,422,921
3,836,214
New Bedford/Fairhaven MA 38,355,882 38,386,869 30,446,143 25,722,137 23,984,942
Pt Judith RI
2,053,878
2,154,229
1,696,455
1,425,630
1,718,495
Eastern Long Island NY
1,082,762
657,188
696,782
363,029
391,002
Grand Total
87,229,410 83,436,935 70,637,862 62,393,076 63,471,329

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

345

2006
12,964,153
2,590,482
32,342,134
7,869,313
8,859,087
222,152,859
29,538,487
15,991,848
332,308,363

2006
7,372,058
938,511
16,218,901
4,479,993
2,289,157
20,509,976
3,062,600
714,862
55,586,058

2007
10,119,019
1,593,287
33,083,655
8,860,509
8,413,117
216,125,108
20,867,699
13,906,444
312,968,838

2007
6,562,637
363,121
18,159,498
6,363,534
2,583,334
19,828,362
2,890,548
657,784
57,408,818

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery

6.2.3.4

Vessel Trip Costs

The NMFS observer program collects cost information on selected observed trips. Data were
queried to provide information on variable trip costs in recent fishing years. A value per day
absent was calculated for each trip and then an annual average value determined for the primary
groundfish gears. Data for FY 2007 is incomplete and only reflects trips through the beginning of
February, 2008. Table 85 provides a summary of these data for trips that reported keeping
regulated groundfish. Note that this information does not reflect all vessel costs. In addition to
fixed costs that are not reported, costs to lease DAS are not included. Nominal values are shown.
Variable costs on these observed trips increased between FY 2003 and FY 2007 with much of the
increase due to increased fuel costs. Total costs per day absent declined slightly for gillnet gear
from FY 2005 to FY 2006, and for longline gear between FY 2004 and FY 2006, while costs for
trawl gear increased steadily. Using FY 2004 as a base year (implementation of Amendment 13),
total costs for gillnet gear increased by 17 percent, for longline gear increased by 11 percent, and
for trawl gear increased by 47 percent. Fuel costs per gallon more than doubled for all three gear
categories. Examining average fuel costs for FY 2007 indicate that fuel prices climbed steadily
through the period observed, from about $2.40/gallon at the beginning of the fishing year to over
$3.20/gallon by January. The average price for FY 2007 is likely to be higher than shown here
when all data are available. Fuel costs did decline in late 2008, but data are not yet available to
determine the magnitude.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

346

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery

Table 85 – Variable costs on observed trips landing regulated groundfish (FY 2007 data incomplete).
Data are averages.
FY
Gear
Data
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Number of Trips
38
174
184
108
87
CREW
3
3
3
3
3
GRTONS
18
20
21
25
18
BHP
378
337
330
328
302
STEAMTIM
3.2
2.2
3.0
3.9
2.7
Gillnet
FOODCOST/DA
$32
$27
$29
$31
$31
ICECOST/DA
$15
$23
$21
$27
$22
FUELPRICE/DA
$1.36
$1.57
$2.16
$2.30
$2.68
FUELCOST/DA
$105
$79
$122
$149
$143
MISCCOST/DA
$60
$89
$88
$39
$47
TOTALCOST/DA
$192
$195
$244
$225
$228
Number of Trips
3
44
45
32
9
CREW
2
2
2
2
2
GRTONS
20
16
21
20
18
BHP
305
356
387
357
422
STEAMTIM
2.0
3.6
5.5
4.3
5.8
Longline
FOODCOST/DA
$13
$25
$27
$24
$23
ICECOST/DA
$15
$46
$23
$25
$33
FUELPRICE/DA
$1.35
$1.82
$2.30
$2.23
$2.94
FUELCOST/DA
$72
$195
$227
$200
$308
MISCCOST/DA
$68
$393
$236
$201
$332
TOTALCOST/DA
$158
$618
$493
$423
$689
Number of Trips
78
281
379
257
255
CREW
3
3
3
3
3
GRTONS
121
104
90
108
97
BHP
548
525
482
545
490
STEAMTIM
9.8
10.0
8.9
10.6
9.1
FOODCOST/DA
$86
$82
$68
$78
$73
Trawl
ICECOST/DA
$105
$78
$87
$86
$82
FUELPRICE/DA
$1.24
$1.63
$2.11
$2.26
$2.65
FUELCOST/DA
$419
$541
$601
$769
$795
MISCCOST/DA
$102
$122
$89
$83
$164
TOTALCOST/DA
$681
$793
$817
$989
$1,084

6.2.3.5

Category B (regular) Day-at-Sea Program

FW 40A implemented a pilot project which allowed the use of Category B (regular) DAS to
target healthy stocks. This program ran for four consecutive quarters, from November 19, 2004 to
its termination on October 6, 2005. The program included strict reporting requirements, limits on
the incidental catch of unhealthy stocks, and a limit on the total number of DAS used in each
quarter. A review of the first three quarters of the program was included in FW 42 (NEFMC
2006). A total of 600 trips were taken in the Category B (regular) DAS pilot program during these
three quarters, and 2,021 B (regular) DAS were used. Six species accounted for approximately
85% of the total catch: skates (21%), monkfish (16%), haddock (15%), yellowtail (13%) winter
skate (11%) and winter flounder (9%).
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

347

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery

FW 42 reauthorized the Category B (regular) DAS program with several notable modifications.
The program was revised to encourage its use to target healthy stocks – primarily GB haddock –
while minimizing the ability of vessel operators to use the program to target unhealthy stocks.
First, vessels fishing in the program using trawl gear were required to use a haddock separator
trawl (or other approved gear – no other gear was authorized until FY 2008). These vessels also
had to comply with the low landing limits for species that are not expected to be caught in the
trawl (flounders, monkfish, lobsters, skates, etc.). Gillnet gear was not subject to the same
requirements. Second, FW 40A limited the amount of monkfish that can be retained while using a
Category B DAS, essentially eliminating an earlier provision that allowed vessels with a
monkfish Category C or D permit to use a Category B DAS while targeting monkfish. Finally, the
number of DAS that could be used in the program was reduced to 3,500 DAS. These changes
became effective when FW 42 was implemented November 22, 2006.
Analysis of data for the Category B (regular) DAS program requires matching trips across several
databases. A small number of trips cannot be matched in this fashion. In order to represent a
clearer picture of total activity, the data provided in this following discussion uses estimates of
activity (DAS, landings, revenues) based on expanding the data from matched trips to all trips in
the program.
Fishing Activity
There were 76 trips in the Category B (regular) DAS program in FY 2006, using about 189 DAS.
The number of trips increased to 257 trips in FY 2007, using about 485 DAS, with most of the
trips (206) between May and October, 2007. Landing (pounds, live weight) are shown by quarter
and fishing year in Table 86. Total landings for the period were 3.8 million pounds (live weight).
Skates were the principal species landed, exceeding 1.5 million pounds in FY 2007. The landings
data reveal a shift to targeting pollock in FY 2007, with over one million pounds landed. The
combination of pollock and skates accounted nearly 85 percent of the landings. Relatively little
haddock was landed – only 66 thousand pounds in FY 2007.
Landings and Revenues
Nominal revenues in this program were just under half a million dollars in FY 2006 and increased
to 1.1 million dollars in FY 2007 (Table 87). Pollock accounted for 66 percent of the revenues in
FY 2006 and 45 percent in FY 2007. Skates were the second largest component of revenues.
Haddock and monkfish accounted for about 6 percent of revenues for the entire period. In each of
the four quarters, average revenues per DAS charged were in the range of $2,100 to $2,900.
Incidental Catch TACs
FW 42 allocated small amounts of stocks of concern to this program in each quarter. Exceeding
these incidental catch TACs would trigger a closure of the program for the remainder of the
quarter, regardless of how many DAS were used. Through the six quarters of the program, none
of the incidental catch TACs has been exceeded. Indeed, only a fraction of these TACs have been
caught. The largest percentage caught was for CC/GOM yellowtail flounder, at 18 percent of the
TAC in the first quarter of FY 2007. Fifteen percent of the white hake and GOM cod TACs were
caught on two occasions. Less than ten percent of the TAC was caught for all other stocks, in all
quarters.
DAS Flipping Rates
In this program, if a vessel operator exceeds the low catch limits for stocks of concern, the
operator is supposed to “flip” from a Category B DAS to a Category A DAS. Analyses for FW 42
found that the flipping rates on observed trips in the Pilot Program were lower than on
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

348

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery

unobserved trips, implying that fishermen were likely to comply with the requirement to flip to a
Category A DAS when an observer was not present. This behavior was examined for the
reauthorized program.
For this analysis, flipping behavior for 15 observed trips in FY 2006 and 72 observed trips in FY
2007 was compared to 74 unobserved trips in FY 2006 and 204 unobserved trips in FY 2007
(Table 88). There were insufficient observations to perform the analysis by quarter or by year, as
was done for FW 42, so the data from the two years was pooled. A likelihood ratio test of the
null hypothesis that the flipping rates on observed and unobserved trips were the same could not
be rejected. Unlike the analysis for FW 42, flipping behavior between observed and unobserved
trips does not appear to be different in FY 2006 and FY 2007 (Table 89).

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

349

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery

Table 86 – Landings (lbs., live weight) under the Category B (regular) DAS program, by fishing year and quarter
(Source: NMFS dealer, DAS, and VTR databases)
2006
COMMON NAME
BLUEFISH
COD, ATLANTIC
CUSK
DOGFISH, SPINY
FLOUNDER, PLAICE, AMERICAN
(DAB)
FLOUNDER, SUMMER (FLUKE)
FLOUNDER, WINTER
FLOUNDER, WITCH (GRAY SOLE)
FLOUNDER, YELLOWTAIL
GOOSEFISH
HADDOCK
HAKE, ATLANTIC,WHITE
HAKE, SILVER UNC (WHITING)
HALIBUT, ATLANTIC
LOBSTER, AMERICAN
OCEAN PERCH, (REDFISH)
POLLOCK, ATLANTIC
SKATE, SMOOTH
SKATE, THORNY
SKATE, WINTER
SKATES
WOLFFISH, ATLANTIC
Grand Total

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

2007

1,282
605
98

6,777
2,728

1,078

61
8,286
850
1,516

35
782
18
9,195
13,036
3,982
1

424
2,604
77,230

34
19,407
454,482

10
9,075
266,641
8
368,732

45
58,480
164
570,242

350

1
3,542
3,395
250
19,042
1,137
10
209
2,839
626
37,679
10,166
1,558
2
26
1,880
4,483
62,194
41,524
732,172
177,755
328
1,100,818

Total

414
7,049
1,208
70

3,160
186

6,577
2,030

1,376

335

810

1,040
72
23,642
21,457
9,878

235
640
22
5,479
4,229
1,655

142
2,565
49,083
437,530

14,073
267,022

2
997
2
8,002
30,813
2,754
5
56
297
47,413
256,398

93
152,626
317,901
281
1,026,426

798
86,072
33
383,939

203
113
356,471

3,956
28,240
7,008
19,210
4,778
10
481
6,359
740
92,282
80,550
21,342
8
223
5,200
137,063
1,554,855
41,524
148
894,874
906,850
926
3,806,628

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery

Table 87 – Nominal revenues, by species, for landings under the Category B (regular) DAS program
Sum of Estimated Value

COMMON NAME
BLUEFISH
COD, ATLANTIC
CUSK
DOGFISH, SPINY
FLOUNDER, PLAICE, AMERICAN
(DAB)
FLOUNDER, SUMMER (FLUKE)
FLOUNDER, WINTER
FLOUNDER, WITCH (GRAY SOLE)
FLOUNDER, YELLOWTAIL
GOOSEFISH
HADDOCK
HAKE, ATLANTIC, WHITE
HAKE, SILVER UNC (WHITING)
HALIBUT, ATLANTIC
LOBSTER, AMERICAN
OCEAN PERCH, (REDFISH)
POLLOCK, ATLANTIC
SKATE, SMOOTH
SKATE, THORNY
SKATE, WINTER
SKATES
WOLFFISH,ATLANTIC
Grand Total

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

Year

Quarter

2006
3

$3,078
$579
$25

$15,902
$2,748

$90

$2,366

$265
$12,367
$1,861
$2,471

$64
$2,415
$28
$11,391
$28,500
$7,521
$1

$1,356
$2,378
$55,688

$168
$14,448
$244,595

$1
$2,293
$67,332
$7
$149,793

$12
$18,223
$264
$348,645

351

2007
1
$1,125
$4,490
$145
$4,043
$1,617
$28
$595
$6,346
$818
$40,025
$14,235
$1,169
$1
$138
$8,714
$1,763
$21,045
$8,937
$136,897
$36,655
$155
$288,941

Grand
Total
2
$184
$12,019
$625
$13

$6,116
$157

$12,789
$1,175

$2,257

$560

$1,864

$2,790
$40
$27,129
$27,998
$9,373

$784
$1,721
$42
$7,419
$6,795
$1,875

$602
$9,428
$20,437
$191,082

$9,155
$97,593

$5
$2,417
$4
$8,464
$28,009
$5,309
$2
$341
$1,505
$30,038
$190,800

$15
$28,230
$64,033
$288
$396,543

$235
$20,982
$43
$153,477

$70
$202
$282,995

$1,309
$54,396
$5,429
$4,081
$8,754
$28
$1,448
$15,954
$932
$106,795
$107,399
$27,719
$4
$1,080
$21,170
$78,218
$800,804
$8,937
$28
$167,725
$207,224
$958
$1,620,393

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery
Table 88 - Number of flipped and unflipped B-regular DAS program trips and flipping rates on
unobserved and observed trips in fishing years 2006 and 2007, by quarter.

FY
2006

Unobserved
Trips
No Flip
Flip

QTR
1
2
3
4

2006 Total
2007

1
2
3
4

2007 Total
Grand Total

3
25
41
66
78
72
20
22
192
258

2
3
8
3
6
1
2
12
20

Trip Count
Observed
Trips
Total No Flip
Flip
3
1
1
27
3
1
44
9
74
12
3
81
34
1
78
23
1
21
6
24
6
1
204
69
3
278
81
6

Grand
Total
Total
1
1
4
9
15
35
24
6
7
72
87

4
1
31
53
89
116
102
27
31
276
365

Note only trips which began on a B DAS
Data Source: DAS Database, VMS Database, and OBSCON data

Table 89 – Results of Pearson Chi-Square and Likelihood ratio test of Cat B (regular) DAS flipping
behavior

FLIP
NOFLIP
Total

OBSERVED
6(1.644%)
81(22.192%)
87(23.836%)

Test Statistic

Observed Counts
UNOBSERVED
Total
20(5.479%)
26(7.123%)
FLIP
258(70.685%)
339(92.877%) NOFLIP
278(76.164%)
365(100.0%)
Total

Value df

p-value

Pearson Chi-square
0.009 1.0000.925
Likelihood Ratio Chi-square0.009 1.0000.925

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

352

Expected Counts
OBSERVED
UNOBSERVED
6.197
19.803
80.803
258.197
87(23.836%)
278(76.164%)

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery

6.2.3.6

Haddock Separator Trawl Performance

Two existing programs require the use of specific trawl gear designed to allow targeting haddock
while reducing catches of cod, flounders, skates, and other bottom-dwelling species. These
programs are the Eastern U.S. /Canada Haddock SAP and the Category B (regular) DAS
Program. This action proposes to extend the Eastern U.S./CA Haddock SAP. At present, two
trawl configurations are authorized for use: the separator trawl and a trawl called the haddock
Ruhle trawl (previously referred to as the rope trawl). There are a limited number of observed
trips by vessels using the separator trawl in the commercial fishery which can be used to
supplement experimental data on the performance of the trawl, while as of November 2007 there
were no observed trips using the Ruhle trawl in the commercial fishery. This section updates and
corrects information presented in FW 42. The information in FW 42 incorrectly combined tows
that used a separator trawl with those that did not.
The observer (OBDBS) database was queried to identify trawl trips that used a separator panel
(excluder device=’3’) in FY 2004 through November, FY 2007. Additional observed trips may
have occurred but were not yet entered into the database when the analyses were completed.
Trips were recorded as either U.S./CA area trips or Category B (regular) DAS trips. This
designation is made by the observer, and it is possible that they are not exclusive (e.g. a Category
B (regular) program trip may occur in the U.S./CA area). Twenty-four trips were coded as
U.S./CA area trips, and seventeen were coded as Category B (regular) DAS program trips.
Total catches (kept and discarded) of the top twenty-five species on tows using a separator panel
are shown in Table 91. This table includes corrections to data reported in FW 42 and differs from
that information. Over the period evaluated, regulated groundfish accounted for sixty-seven
percent of the catch, with haddock, pollock, yellowtail flounder, and winter flounder as the four
largest regulated groundfish components. Skates (all species) accounted for nearly twenty-six
percent of the catch on these tows. Only five percent of the catch was cod. Pollock was a large
part of the catch for tows observed in the Gulf of Maine, but not on Georges Bank.
Catches on observed tows using a separator trawl are shown by year in Table 92. From this table
it is clear that fishermen began using the gear to target pollock in FY 2006, primarily in the Gulf
of Maine. Table 93 shows the observed ratios of haddock to other species. The ratio of haddock
to cod has not approached the 20:1 ratio reported by Canadian fishermen and some separator
trawl experiments, though it does appear to have improved in FY 2007. The ratios of haddock to
flounders, skates, and monkfish - demersal species expected to be released by the net – were low
during FY 2004 and FY 2005, but increased in FY 2006 and FY 2007. This may be due to
regulations adopted in FY 2006 that only allow landing small quantities of these species when a
separator trawl is required. It may also be due to a change in the target species to pollock rather
than haddock, as pollock is less likely to be found in areas with yellowtail and winter flounder.
Haddock discards accounted for seventeen percent of the haddock catch (48,799 lbs.), with
almost all discards due to the fish being smaller than the regulatory minimum. Most of the
haddock discards occurred in FY 2006 and are probably from the 2003 year class. Cod discards
accounted for forty-one percent (24,776 lbs.) of the cod catch; sixty percent of these discards
were due to a filled vessel quota, twenty percent were due to high grading, and various other
reasons were given for the remaining discards. This suggests that the performance of the
separator trawl does not limit cod catches to less than the trip limit.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

353

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery

Catch composition on tows using the separator trawl was examined by trip, focusing on regulated
groundfish. Thirty-nine of the forty-one trips caught haddock and cod while using a separator
trawl, thirty-four caught monkfish, thirty-two caught plaice, twenty-nine trips caught yellowtail or
witch flounder, and twenty-seven trips caught winter flounder. The ratio of haddock to cod for
the thirty-nine trips ranged from 0:1 to 63.9:1. The ratio of haddock to winter flounder ranged
from 0:1 to 159:1, while the ratio of haddock to yellowtail flounder ranged from 0.1:1 to nearly
4,000:1.
There were a total of 585 observed tows that used a separator trawl on these forty-one trips. Over
these tows, haddock was caught on 521 tows (eighty-nine percent), cod on 451 tows (eighty-two
percent), yellowtail flounder on 325 tows (fifty-five percent), and winter flounder on 295 tows
(fifty percent). The average catch per tow, by year, for each of these species is shown in Table 94.
A pairwise analysis of variance was used to determine if catches per tow in each fishing year
were statistically different. The highest haddock catches were in FY 2004 at 778 lbs./tow,
followed by FY 2006 at 528 lbs/tow. FY 2004 was significantly different than FY 2005 and FY
2007. Cod catch per tow was lowest in FY 2007; this value is significantly different than the other
three years. Yellowtail flounder catches per tow were lower in FY 2006 and FY 2007; these were
significantly different than FY 2005. Winter flounder catches per tow were highest in FY 2005,
and this was significantly different than in any of the other three years.
Catch rates are often assumed to bear a relationship to stock size. The decline in the average
haddock catch per tow does not seem consistent with the rapid increase in the GB haddock stock.
Part of the explanation may be the increased targeting of pollock in recent years. It may also be
partly explained by the structure of the GB haddock biomass in recent years. In 2004, there was
over 37,000 mt of mean biomass consisting of fish age 5 or older, which increased to nearly
71,000 mt in 2005 before declining to about 33,000 mt 2007. The population has been dominated
by the 2003 year class which has been smaller at age than other recent year classes. If this is the
case, catch rates for GB haddock while using the separator trawl should increase as the 2003 year
class enters older ages.
Over the four year period, there were fourteen observed trips that made tows with and without
using the separator panel. Taking a closer look at these trips might reduce some of the variation
due to differences between vessels or operators. These trips did not always use both
configurations in the same area, and there are too few trips and tows to analyze the information
by year or statistical area because of confidentiality concerns. While recognizing that target
species may differ between areas and years, the ratios of haddock to cod were examined for this
subset of the separator trawl trips. Examining the catches on a trip basis, the ratio of haddock to
cod while using a separator trawl was higher on eight trips and lower on six trips; this is not a
statistically significant difference when examined using a Fisher’s sign test. When catches of cod
and haddock are combined over all of these trips the ratio to haddock to cod while using the
separator trawl was 3:1. When the panel was not used the ratio was 1.8:1.
Overall, the haddock separator trawl has had mixed results in commercial fishing operations.
Gear performance has been variable on observed trips. The ratios of haddock to cod that were
expected when this gear was adopted have not been realized. Catches of other demersal species –
flounders, skates, monkfish, – have been higher than expected based on experimental results.
Still, the separator trawl has reduced catches of these species compared to normal fishing
practices and there is evidence that in recent years the ratios of haddock caught to flounders
caught has increased.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

354

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery

Table 90 – Observed trips using a separator panel, FY 2004- November, FY 2007. Rows do not add to
column total because individual trips may fish in more than one area.
FY
MONTH
AREA
464
513 514 515 521 522 525
552 561
562
Total
US/CA Area
2004
01
1
1
03
1
3
3
5
05
1
1
2005

2006

05
06
07
11

11
Total

2004
2005

03
05
06
07
08
02
03
08
05
08
09
10
Total

2007

1
1

5
1
1

5
2
1

5
3
1
1

2
1

3
2
1

05
06
08

2007

2006

1
1

2
1

1
1
1

Category B (regular) DAS Program
1
1
1
2
2
1
1

1
24

1
2
2

1
1

1
1
1

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

355

1
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
2
1
1
1
17

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery
Table 91 – Catches (pounds, live weight, kept and discarded) by statistical area on observed tows
using a haddock separator trawl, FY 2004 – November, FY 2007. Only top twenty-five species caught
are shown.
Name
GOM
GB
Total
HADDOCK
2,182
282,739
284,921
POLLOCK
172,563
15,301
187,863
SKATE, NK
4
108,942
108,946
FLOUNDER, YELLOWTAIL
2
90,342
90,345
SKATE, WINTER (BIG)
40
87,384
87,424
SKATE, LITTLE
10
81,519
81,529
FLOUNDER, WINTER (BLACKBACK)
15
72,776
72,791
COD, ATLANTIC
1,429
59,040
60,469
MONKFISH (ANGLER, GOOSEFISH)
3,359
41,616
44,975
FLOUNDER, WITCH (GREY SOLE)
432
21,436
21,868
FLOUNDER, AMERICAN PLAICE
554
18,519
19,073
LOBSTER, AMERICAN
881
14,716
15,597
REDFISH, NK (OCEAN PERCH)
12,661
1,284
13,945
SKATE, BARNDOOR
37
12,807
12,844
DOGFISH, SPINY
658
7,826
8,484
FLOUNDER, SAND DAB (WINDOWPANE)
0
6,965
6,965
RAVEN, SEA
15
5,647
5,662
SCALLOP, SEA
0
3,742
3,742
HAKE, WHITE
952
2,773
3,725
FLOUNDER, SUMMER (FLUKE)
0
2,561
2,561
OCEAN POUT
0
2,305
2,305
FLOUNDER, FOURSPOT
18
2,084
2,101
SEAWEED, NK
0
1,057
1,057
SKATE, SMOOTH
111
835
945
STARFISH, SEASTAR,NK
0
791
791
Grand Total
195,922
945,005
1,140,927

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

356

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery

Table 92 - Catches (pounds, live weight, kept and discarded) on observed tows using a haddock
separator trawl, FY 2004 – November, FY 2007. Only top twenty-five species caught are shown.
FY
NAME
2004
2005
2006
2007
HADDOCK
81,539
127,587
66,766
9,029
POLLOCK
605
4,480
83,140
99,638
SKATE, NK
3,831
102,055
3,055
5
FLOUNDER, YELLOWTAIL
12,369
69,200
8,731
45
SKATE, WINTER (BIG)
21,503
47,238
18,569
113
SKATE, LITTLE
9,792
48,850
22,767
121
FLOUNDER, WINTER
2,395
57,834
12,534
28
COD, ATLANTIC
14,824
31,136
13,508
1,002
MONKFISH
9,140
28,794
5,168
1,872
FLOUNDER, WITCH
11,808
8,490
1,105
464
FLOUNDER, AMERICAN PLAICE
909
14,843
2,277
1,044
LOBSTER, AMERICAN
2,265
11,671
1,135
526
REDFISH, NK (OCEAN PERCH)
571
420
5,118
7,836
SKATE, BARNDOOR
46
11,423
1,328
48
DOGFISH, SPINY
139
1,612
6,232
501
FLOUNDER, WINDOWPANE
1,794
2,270
2,881
20
RAVEN, SEA
172
3,474
1,986
30
SCALLOP, SEA
257
3,209
276
HAKE, WHITE
484
910
1,754
577
FLOUNDER, SUMMER
43
1,429
1,085
4
OCEAN POUT
9
767
1,529
FLOUNDER, FOURSPOT
2
2,061
21
18
SEAWEED, NK
51
6
1,000
SKATE, SMOOTH
18
515
378
35
STARFISH, SEASTAR,NK
10
771
8
2
Total
174,525
581,088
261,356
123,958

Total
284,921
187,863
108,946
90,345
87,424
81,529
72,791
60,469
44,975
21,868
19,073
15,597
13,945
12,844
8,484
6,965
5,662
3,742
3,725
2,561
2,305
2,101
1,057
945
791
1,140,927

Table 93 – Observed ratios of haddock to other species on tows using a haddock separator trawl, FY
2004 – November, FY 2007
FY
2004
2005
2006
2007
All Years
Had/Cod
5.50
4.10
4.94
9.01
4.71
Had/YTF
6.59
1.84
7.65
201.53
3.15
Had/WFL
34.05
2.21
5.33
322.45
3.91
Had/Monk
8.92
4.43
12.92
4.82
6.34
Had/Skate (All)
2.32
0.61
1.45
27.98
0.98

Table 94 – Average catch per tow (lbs.) on observed trips using a separator trawl
FY
Haddock
Cod
Yellowtail Winter Flounder
Pollock
2004
778
155
136
26
7
2005
376
98
222
185
14
2006
528
103
70
95
662
2007
151
17
1
0.5
1,601

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

357

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery

6.2.3.7

Days-At-Sea Leasing and Transfer Programs

Amendment 13 implemented two programs that allowed the transfer of DAS between permit
holders. The DAS Leasing Program provided an opportunity for the temporary transfer of DAS
from one permit to another vessel, while the DAS Transfer Program provided an opportunity for
the permanent transfer of DAS from one groundfish permit to another. The DAS Leasing
Program was most frequently used, with only limited participation in the DAS Transfer Program
until recently. This section updates participation in both programs along with a more in-depth
evaluation of the DAS Transfer Program.

6.2.3.7.1 DAS Leasing Program
The DAS Leasing Program was first implemented in FY 2004 and has not been revised to date.
While Amendment 13 adopted the program for a period of two years, FW 42 extended the
program indefinitely. Appendix I of FW 42 provides a detailed summary and analysis for the
DAS Leasing Program through FY 2004.
Table 95 summarizes recent participation in the DAS Leasing Program during FYs 2005-2007.

Participation in the DAS Leasing Program has gradually increased since the program’s inception
in 2004 in both number of permits involved and DAS transferred. The number of distinct permits
participating in the program during FY 2007 represents nearly half of the number of valid limited
access groundfish permits in the fishery and over 60 percent of the number of permits allocated
DAS during FY 2007. While the number of DAS transferred has increased, the average number
of DAS transferred with each approved lease request has declined.
Table 95 - General Summary of Participation in the DAS Leasing Program during Fishing Years
2005-2007
2005
2006
2007
376
493
677
Total Leases Processed
338
469
645
Total Leases Approved
336
542
626
Number of Distinct Permits
8,129.04
11,244.69
13,909.79
Total DAS Transferred
24.05
23.98
21.56
Average Number of DAS Transferred
$287.75
$379.39
$408.12
Average cost per DAS Transferred
$3,409.09 $4,312.20 $10,000.00
Highest cost per DAS Transferred
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Lowest cost per DAS Transferred

Table 96 reveals that an increasing proportion of allocated DAS are being leased and that vessels
are increasingly relying upon the DAS Leasing Program to acquire additional DAS to maintain
vessel operations. In FY 2004, over 6,000 DAS were leased, or roughly 14 percent of all
Category A DAS that were allocated and 20 percent of the Category A DAS that were used
during FY 2004. In 2005, 8,129 DAS were leased, representing 16 percent of allocated Category
A DAS and 25 percent of used Category A DAS. In FY 2006 and 2007, 11,245 and 13,910 DAS
were leased, representing 23 percent and 29 percent of allocated Category A DAS and 35 percent
and 42 percent of used DAS, respectively. It also appears that the recent increasing trend in DAS
leasing activity continues during the first few months of FY 2008. Through September 12, 2008,
over 6,600 DAS were leased, compared to just over 5,900 in FY 2007 (Table 97). Therefore, it is

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

358

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery

likely that the recent trend in DAS leasing will continue, with the number of DAS leased during
FY 2008 likely to exceed the number of DAS leased during previous fishing years.
Table 96 - Number of DAS Leased as a Proportion of Category A DAS Allocated and Used by
Fishing Year
Fishing Year DAS Leased Proportion of Allocated DAS Proportion of Used DAS
6,123
14%
20%
2004
8,129
16%
25%
2005
11,245
23%
35%
2006
13,910
29%
42%
2007
Table 97 - Number of DAS Leased for Partial FY 2008 Compared to the Same Period FY 2007
Month
May
June
July
August
September*
Total

2007 Leased DAS
1,312.09
1,049.99
1,504.14
1,473.07
570.29
5,909.58

2008 Leased DAS
1,361.97
1,818.85
1,219.77
1,491.01
741.94
6,633.54

*Includes DAS Lease requests processed through September 12 of both years.
Leasing price data is entered by participants on the DAS leasing request form and is not
independently verified. Average price per DAS leased was derived by taking the price listed on
the form and dividing it by the number of DAS leased. Despite a distinct spike in prices in
September, both the average number and price of DAS leased has decreased throughout the
fishing year with highest numbers and prices observed in May and lowest in the following April
(see Figure 43 through Figure 45).

Ju
Au ly
Se g
p t u st
em
b
O er
ct
N ob
ov er
e
D mb
ec e
em r
b
Ja e r
n
Fe uar
br y
ua
ry
M
ar
ch

Month

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

359

DAS Leased

45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

600
500
400
300
200
100
0
ay

Price ($) per DAS

Figure 43 - Average Price and DAS Leased by Month During Fishing Year 2005

Avg Price
Avg DAS
Leased

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery

Ju
Au ly
Se g
p t u st
em
b
O er
ct
N ob
ov er
e
D mb
ec e
em r
b
Ja e r
nu
F e ar
br y
ua
ry
M
ar
ch
Month

DAS Leased

45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0

Price ($) Per DAS

Figure 44 - Average Price and DAS Leased by Month During Fishing Year 2006

Average Price
Average DAS
Leased

50
40
30
20
10
0

Month

DAS Leased

700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
M
ay
Ju
ne
Ju
l
A
S e ug y
pt us
em t
O b er
c
N t ob
ov e
r
D em
ec be
em r
Ja ber
n
F e ua
br ry
ua
M ry
ar
ch

Price ($) per DAS

Figure 45 - Average Price and DAS Leased by Month During Fishing Year 2007

Average Price
Average DAS
Leased

Overall, the average price paid for leased DAS has increased during FY 2005-2007 (Table 98).
The maximum price per DAS observed during this time period ranged from $3,409 in 2005 to
over $10,000 per DAS in 2007 (Table 95). Figure 46 shows the number of DAS leased within five
price ranges as well as the trend of increasing prices since FY 2005. These data indicate that
most DAS were leased for less than $1 per DAS. This suggests that vessel owners possess
multiple groundfish DAS permits and lease to themselves. However, this suggestion should not
be considered a definitive conclusion, as it is unknown whether the prices submitted on DAS
lease request forms are accurate, or whether participants are refusing to provide such price
information.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

360

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery
Table 98 - Average Price per DAS Leased During Fishing Years 2005-2007
Fishing Year
2005
2006
2007

Average Price per DAS Leased
$287.74
$283.13
$313.21

Number of DAS Leased

Figure 46 - Number of DAS Leased by Price Range during Fishing Years 2005-2007

5,000.00
4,500.00
4,000.00
3,500.00
3,000.00
2,500.00
2,000.00
1,500.00
1,000.00
500.00
0.00

2005
2006
2007

1-250

250-350

350-700

>700

Price Range

Of the primary groundfish ports, vessels based out of New Bedford have paid the highest average
price per DAS leased since the development of the DAS Leasing Program, with an average price
of just over $780 per DAS in FY 2007 (Figure 47). With the exception of Boston, the three other
major ports show an increasing trend in average prices since FY 2005, although prices in
Gloucester have remained relatively stable, increasing only $33 since FY 2005. However, for all
ports, these recent prices are far below those offered during the first year of the program in FY
2004. Data presented in Framework 42 indicated average price per DAS in FY 2004 were just
under $900 per DAS for New Bedford vessels, while Portland and Gloucester vessels paid just
over $500 and $300, respectively.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

361

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery

Figure 47 - Number of DAS Leased by Price Range during Fishing Years 2005-2007
$900
$800
$700
$600
2005
2006
2007

$500
$400
$300
$200
$100
$0
Boston

Gloucester

New Bedford

Portland

Lessee Vessel Home Port Port

Consistent with earlier analysis in both Amendment 13 and Framework 42, DAS have been
leased from southern states generally less active in the groundfish fishery to more northerly states
that are more active in the groundfish fishery. Since the implementation of the DAS Leasing
Program, vessels based out of Massachusetts have been the most active participants in the DAS
Leasing Program, leasing in more DAS than any other state and leasing an increasing proportion
of DAS leased overall (see Table 99 through Table 101). In general, there appears to be a
funneling of DAS from other states to vessels based out of Massachusetts, although some
intrastate leasing is also prevalent in states with the most active groundfish vessels such as Maine
and New Hampshire. The existence of the DAS Leasing Program has allowed active groundfish
vessels to continue fishing in the groundfish fishery despite recent reductions in fishing effort.
This is particularly evident for vessels based out of Massachusetts where fishing effort has been
substantially reduced due to the implementation of differential DAS counting in the inshore GOM
since FY 2006. In addition, the DAS Leasing Program provides some revenue to those vessels
that are less involved with the groundfish fishery. It is likely that the DAS Leasing Program
benefited some SNE/MA stocks by shifting effort into the GOM and on GB, but in doing so it
may have also contributed to increased catches of several GOM and GB stocks. However, as
noted in previous analysis of the DAS Leasing Program, while leasing DAS may not be
conservation neutral for all stocks, it is difficult to separate the biological impacts of other
management measures from the impacts of the DAS Leasing Program.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

362

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery
Table 99 - Number of DAS Leased by Home Port State During Fishing Year 2005

Lessor Vessel
Home Port by
ME
NH
MA
RI
CT
NY
NJ
PA
DE
VA
NC
FL
Grand Total
Net Change

ME
1,871
108
71

NH
63
363
75

2,144
-309

521
-175

Lessee Vessel Home Port by State
MA
RI
NY
DE
NC
461
58
225
3,256
33
50
10
238
98
69
98
145
254
85
20
9
89
94
68
20
40
46
4,817 294
215
99
40
1,323
-42
-28
10
-88

Grand Total
2,453
695
3,495
336
69
242
473
9
89
94
128
46
8,129

Table 100 - Number of DAS Leased by Home Port State During Fishing Year 2006
Lessor Vessel
Home Port State
ME
NH
MA
RI
CT
NY
NJ
PA
DE
VA
NC
FL
Grand Total
Net Change

ME
1,618
63
211
20

NH
124
650
33

10
18

MA
656
290
5,483
298
21
417
445
11

Lessee Vessel Home Port State
NY
RI
CT
DE

31
26
63
55

76
142
10
20
68
89

20
1,922
1

845
-157

64
112
42
7,839
2,004

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

60
175
-335

363

306
-153

10
-47

89
0

60
-132

Grand Total
2,398
1,002
5,834
460
57
510
587
11
89
64
192
42
11,245

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery
Table 101 - Number of DAS Leased by Home Port State During Fishing Year 2007
Lessor Vessel
Home Port State
ME
NH
MA
RI
CT
NY
NJ
PA
DE
VA
NC
FL
Grand Total
Net Change

ME
1,949
81
333
20

NH
203
671
168

MA
843
132
7,373
315
47
402
224
9

Lessee Vessel Home Port State
RI
CT
NY
DE
30
30
156
20
136
48
44
18
34
197

74
26
2,410
-614

1,074
159

81
65
42
9,532
1,482

107
615
145

44
-95

54
-400

74
0

107
-91

Grand Total
3,024
915
8,051
471
139
454
453
9
74
81
198
42
13,910

6.2.3.7.2 DAS Transfer Program
The DAS Transfer Program was first adopted by Amendment 13 in 2004, but has been revised
twice in an attempt to increase participation in the program. Framework Adjustment 40B (2005)
reduced the conservation tax applied to Category A and B DAS transferred from 40 percent to 20
percent and Framework Adjustment 42 (2006) eliminated the provision that the vessel
transferring NE multispecies DAS to another vessel (i.e., the transferor vessel) must retire from
all state and federal fisheries, among other revisions. In doing so, Framework Adjustment 42
allowed the vessel receiving NE multispecies DAS from another vessel (i.e., the transferee vessel)
to retain all other limited access fishery permits not already issued to that vessel. Until both of
these changes were made, no vessels participated in the DAS Transfer Program.
Table 102 summarizes recent participation in the DAS Transfer Program since its inception in FY

2004. Due to confidentiality issues, data from transfers occurring during FY 2008 cannot be
released. In summary, participation in the program has increased between FYs 2006 and 2007,
with over 430 DAS transferred among 14 permits during FY 2007. This represents only 0.6
percent of the total number of DAS (Category A and B only) allocated to the fishery as a whole
and 1.3 percent of the number of DAS used during FY 2007.
With only two years of data and few transfers per year, it is difficult to draw any conclusions
regarding trends in participation or price for the DAS Transfer Program. While the average
number of DAS transferred has increased slightly, the average price paid per DAS has fallen by
more than 50 percent since FY 2006. This is not necessarily a reflection of the true value of a
DAS, but rather indicative of an incomplete data set, as more applicants reported prices on
transfer request forms during FY 2006 than FY 2007. Because the price information is selfreported, there are concerns about the accuracy of the price data, including whether the price
information submitted reflects the price paid per DAS, or for the total number of DAS to be
transferred. In addition, price could also be affected by whether the individual purchased an
operational fishing vessel associated with the permit, or a skiff temporarily holding the permit, as
noted further below.
The average price per DAS transferred in Table 102 seems disproportionately low when compared
to prices submitted for the DAS Leasing Program (see Table 95 above). Because leases are
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

364

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery

temporary, one would expect the price paid per DAS leased to be much lower than the prices paid
per DAS transferred, which confers permanent use of transferred DAS. However, that was not
observed, as the price paid per DAS transferred was lower than that paid for each DAS leased in
FY 2007. However, when considering only reported total prices greater than $100, a likely more
accurate depiction of the average price per DAS transferred, the average price per DAS
transferred is closer to $1,400.
Table 102 - General Summary of Participation in the DAS Transfer Program

FY 2006
5
5
9
260.75
142.90
52.41
52.41
13.04
52.15
28.58
10.48
10.48
2.61
$719.65
$1,704.55
$0.01

Total Transfers Received
Total Transfers Approved
Number of Distinct Permits
Total DAS Transferred
Category A DAS
Category B Regular DAS
Category B Reserve DAS
Category C DAS
Average Number of DAS Transferred
Category A DAS
Category B Regular DAS
Category B Reserve DAS
Category C DAS
Average cost per DAS Transferred
Highest cost per DAS Transferred
Lowest cost per DAS Transferred

FY 2007
8
7
14
436.52
223.43
91.41
91.41
30.27
54.57
27.93
11.43
11.43
3.78
$338.93
$1,630.43
$0.00

FY 2008
1
1
2
Confidential
Confidential
Confidential
Confidential
Confidential
Confidential
Confidential
Confidential
Confidential
Confidential
Confidential
Confidential
Confidential

Table 103 shows the total number of DAS transferred by home port state during FYs 2006 and
2007, while Table 104 through Table 107 break down these data by DAS category. Data for two

states cannot be presented due to confidentiality concerns. In total, nearly 700 DAS were
transferred under the DAS Transfer Program. Similar to the summary of DAS Leasing Program
presented above, vessels based out of Massachusetts ports have acquired more DAS through the
DAS Transfer Program than any other state. However, in contrast to the DAS Leasing Program,
there appears to be no regional shift of DAS from more southerly states to states bordering the
GOM. With the exception of two transfers of permits allocated only Category C DAS, most of
the DAS transferred came from vessels within the same state, often within the same port as the
transferee vessel. This later fact could be an artifact of the requirement that the individual
requesting the DAS transfer already own both vessels. Further inquiry into previous ownership
may reveal movement among home ports and associated states.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

365

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery
Table 103 - Total Number of DAS Transferred by Home Port State During FYs 2006 and 2007

Transferee Vessel Home Port State
ME
NH
MA Grand Total*
ME
172.20
172.20
MA
473.78
473.78
*Data from two states cannot be presented due to confidentiality concerns.
Transferor Vessel Home Port State

Table 104 - Total Number of Category A DAS Transferred by Home Port State During FYs 2006 and
2007

Transferee Vessel Home Port State
ME
NH
MA Grand Total*
ME
98.30
98.30
MA
252.39
252.39
*Data from two states cannot be presented due to confidentiality concerns.
Transferor Vessel Home Port State

Table 105 - Total Number of Category B Regular DAS Transferred by Home Port State During FYs
2006 and 2007

Transferee Vessel Home Port State
ME
NH
MA Grand Total*
ME
34.17
34.17
MA
103.25
103.25
*Data from two states cannot be presented due to confidentiality concerns.
Transferor Vessel Home Port State

Table 106 - Total Number of Category B Reserve DAS Transferred by Home Port State During FYs
2006 and 2007

Transferee Vessel Home Port State
ME
NH
MA Grand Total*
ME
34.17
34.17
MA
103.25
103.25
*Data from two states cannot be presented due to confidentiality concerns.
Transferor Vessel Home Port State

Table 107 - Total Number of Category C DAS Transferred by Home Port State During FYs 2006 and
2007

Transferee Vessel Home Port State
ME
NH
MA Grand Total*
ME
5.57
5.57
MA
14.89
14.89
*Data from two states cannot be presented due to confidentiality concerns.
Transferor Vessel Home Port State

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

366

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery
Table 108 indicates the average physical characteristics of vessels participating in the DAS

Transfer Program. It should be noted that 8 out of the 14 transferor vessels during FYs 2006 and
2007 were less than 17 feet in length and are considered to be skiffs rather than operational
fishing vessels. Because the current regulations require permits to be transferred in association
with a vessel, these skiffs are often used as platforms to facilitate the exchange of permits without
incurring the high cost of purchasing the larger fishing vessel that originally established the
fishing history for the permit. Therefore, the size of the transferor vessel is not indicative of the
fishing capacity being removed from Northeast fisheries, while the size of the transferee vessels
represents actual ongoing fishing capacity, as these vessels are operational fishing platforms.
Table 108 - Average Physical Characteristics of Transferor and Transferee Vessels Participating in
the DAS Transfer Program

Length
Gross Tons
Horsepower

Transferor
23
11
234

Transferee
52
42
323

Due to confidentiality reasons, data on the numbers of DAS transferred among the various size
categories cannot be presented. Because vessels can only transfer DAS to other vessels within
specific size parameters (i.e., within 10% of the baseline length and within 20% of the baseline
horsepower), most DAS were transferred within vessels of the same size category resulting in no
net increase in fishing capacity due to this program.
As noted above, two fundamental changes to the DAS Transfer Program were thought necessary
to entice vessels to participate in this program: (1) removal of the requirement to retire from all
state and federal fisheries, and (2) reduction of the conservation tax. The removal of the
requirement to retire from all fisheries in 2005 did not result in any new participation in the
program, but reducing the conservation tax in 2006 did. It is important to describe the
implications of both revisions on the current participation in the DAS Transfer Program.
The current regulations for the DAS Transfer Program allow the transferee vessel to be issued
any of the limited access permits previously held by the transferor vessel, with the exception that
any duplicate limited access permits must be forfeited. Table 109 lists the number of limited
access permits gained and lost as a result of the DAS Transfer Program. Overall, participating
vessels lost more permits than were gained. However, this is misleading and is not indicative of
the benefits/costs of participating in this program. Most active fishing vessels have been issued
American lobster permits, so forfeiting duplicate American lobster permits is not necessarily
reducing fishing opportunity for these vessels. In fact, it may increase fishing opportunities by
allowing the vessel owner to choose which American lobster permit to forfeit, enabling the vessel
owner to retain the one with the best fishing history and, therefore, trap allocation. In addition,
participating vessels gained more fishing opportunities through the acquisition of nine permits in
Mid-Atlantic fisheries such as summer flounder, scup, black sea bass, and Loligo/butterfish. It is
unclear whether such vessels will actually participate in those Mid-Atlantic fisheries, or whether
the vessel owner will concentrate on increasing their participation in the groundfish fishery
thanks to the additional DAS gained from the transfer.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

367

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery
Table 109 - Number of Limited Access Permits Gained and Lost Through the DAS Transfer
Program

Species Permit

Number of Permits Number of Permits
Gained
Lost

American Lobster
Summer Flounder
Monkfish
Black Sea Bass
Loligo /Butterfish
Scup
Total

Out of the fourteen vessels that transferred NE multispecies DAS and other associated permits
under the DAS Transfer Program, only two vessels continue to participate in any fisheries within
the Northeast. After the transfer was approved, one vessel acquired additional limited access
permits in several fisheries from another vessel, while the other vessel was issued only new open
access permits. In any case, there is still a net reduction in fishing capacity throughout NE
fisheries due to the forfeiture of 15 limited access permits as a result of this program.
On several occasions, the transferor vessel was issued nothing more than a NE multispecies
permit with Category C DAS. While such permits would seemingly have minimal value, they do
provide the opportunity for the transferee vessel to greatly increase the number of DAS it could
lease from other vessels. This is because the current regulations governing the DAS Leasing
Program limit the number of DAS that a vessel could lease by its 2001 DAS allocation. By
combining fishing histories of the participating vessels, the transferee vessel is also combining the
2001 DAS allocations of the associated permits and, therefore, increasing the number DAS that
the vessel could lease. In doing so, the transferee vessel is able to increase potential future
revenue from landings associated with the use of additional groundfish DAS.
Table 110 highlights the number of DAS that were lost due to the conservation tax in the DAS
Transfer Program. It is important to note that the number of DAS transferred (see Table 102
above) is not the same as the number of DAS that were taxed. This is because of a revision in
Framework Adjustment 42 that allows the conservation tax to be applied to either the DAS
associated with the transferor or transferee vessel. Most often, but not always, the vessel owner
chose to apply the conservation tax to the vessel with the lowest DAS allocation to minimize the
number of DAS lost due to the tax.
Currently, the tax applied to Category A and B DAS transferred is 20 percent, while Category C
DAS transferred are taxed at a rate of 90 percent. The 14 transfers processed through FY 2007
reduced the number of Category A DAS available by 81.5 DAS, or roughly 0.2 percent of the
40,000 Category A DAS allocated to vessels during FY 2007. In total, the 148.22 Category A
and B DAS eliminated by the DAS Transfer Program also represent 0.2 percent of the combined
77,000 Category A and B DAS allocated during FY 2007 and represent a net reduction in fishing
effort.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

368

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery
Table 110 - Number of DAS Lost Due to the Conservation Tax in the DAS Transfer Program

DAS Category
A DAS
B Regular DAS
B Reserve DAS
C DAS
Total

6.2.3.8

DAS Originally
Allocated

DAS Actually
Transferred

DAS Lost Due to
Conservation Tax

407.61
166.76
166.76
462.68
1203.81

326.09
133.41
133.41
46.27
639.17

81.52
33.35
33.35
416.41
564.64

Commercial Fishing Vessel Safety

The United States Coast Guard’s First Coast Guard District Office maintains an extensive
database of fishing vessel safety incidents that occurred in the northwest Atlantic since January 1,
1993. Most of the information is for reportable casualties, defined as:

A grounding;
Loss of propulsion, primary steering or any associated control system that reduces the
maneuverability of the vessel;
An occurrence materially and adversely affecting the vessel's seaworthiness including but
not limited to: fire, collision, sinking and flooding;
A loss of life;
An injury that requires professional medical treatment and that renders the individual
unfit to perform his or her routine duties;
An occurrence causing property damage in excess of $25,000.

In addition, the database includes information on Emergency Position Indicating Radio Beacon
(EPIRB) alerts and trip terminations because of safety violations. The data for 1993 through 2009
are available to the public via a website
(http://www.uscg.mil/d1/prevention/MASTER%20REPORT.xlsl). In recent years the latitude and
longitude of the incident is also provided.
While the data are not organized by fishery, in many instances the type of vessel (scalloper,
longline, gillnet, trawler, etc.) is recorded. Trawls, gillnets, and longlines are three of the primary
gear types used to catch groundfish. While these gears are used in a variety of fisheries,
examining the number of accidents on vessels using these gear types may give an indication of
the number of accidents that occurred in the groundfish fishery. Amendment 13 summarized this
information for FY 1996 through 2001; this section updates that information for FY 2001 through
FY 2008 (as of December 2008).
Figure 48 shows the number of accidents for all fisheries since FY 2001, reported by groundfish
fishing year. The number of equipment problems increased in FY 2003 and FY 2004 –reversing a
trend of a steady decline reported in Amendment 13 – before declining again in FY 2005-FY
2007. The number of EPRIB incidents greatly increased in FY 2007 and FY 2008 for unknown
reasons. The number of fires decreased from FY 2001 to FY 2007, and most other incident
categories varied without a clear trend. Figure 49 illustrates information on the same type of
casualties, but only for incidents identified as being on trawl, gillnet, or longline vessels. The total

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

369

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery

number of incidents has declined since FY 2001. The number of groundings and fires declined
while sinkings fluctuated without a clear trend.
Figure 50 summarizes the reported injuries and deaths for all fisheries. After a steep decline in
injuries from FY 2001 to FY 2002, injuries appear to be increasing. The number of deaths has
remained relatively constant. Figure 51 summarizes information for trawl, gillnet, and longline
vessels; the patterns appear similar though the increasing trend in injuries is not as strong.
Figure 52 and Figure 53 summarize injuries on trawl, gillnet, and longline vessels using four size
classifications based on length. Both reported injuries and deaths appear to occur more often on
vessels over 50 feet in length.
One concern with the adoption of the differential DAS areas in FW 42 was that vessel operators
would fish outside the range of their vessels and the number of accidents would increase just
outside the areas. This was a particular concern for the GOM differential DAS area. The incident
latitudes and longitudes reported by the U.S. Coast Guard were plotted in Figure 54 for trawl,
gillnet, and longline vessels. There is little evidence in these plots that the differential DAS areas
led to an increase in accidents just outside the areas. This brief review is not definitive, however,
since not all incidents have valid recorded positions and it is possible that in some cases the
incident began in a location different than the one plotted.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

370

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery

Figure 48 - Vessel safety incidents in all fisheries

Source Data: USCG. *FY 2008 data are current through 12/31/08
All years denote fishing years – May 1 – April 30.
120

NUMBER OF INCIDENTS

100

2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008

OTHER

CAPSIZED

DEATH

TOW

MEDICAL

COLLISION

FIRE

T.O.W.

DISABLED

SUNK

AGROUND

INJURY

EPIRB

TERMINATION

EQUIPMENT

Figure 49 – Vessel safety incidents in trawl, gillnet, and longline fisheries
40
Total Incidents
90

35
80

N U M B E R O F IN C ID E N T S

NUMBER OF INCIDENTS

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

371

CAPSIZED

OTHER

TOW

COLLISION

MEDICAL

DEATH

EPIRB

FIRE

DISABLED

AGROUND

SUNK

T.O.W.

TERMINATION

INJURY

EQUIPMENT

2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery

Figure 50 - Fishing vessel deaths and injuries in all fisheries

Source Data: USCG. *20081 data are current through 12/31/08
50

NUMBER OF INCIDENTS

35
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008

0
Injuries

Deaths

Figure 51 - Fishing vessel deaths and injuries on trawl, longline, and gillnet vessels

Source Data: USCG. *2008 data are current through 12/31/08
14

NUMBER OF INCIDENTS

2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008

0
Injuries

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

Deaths

372

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery

Figure 52 – Injuries on trawl, gillnet, or longline vessels, by size, FY 2001 – FY 2008
8

NUMBER OF INCIDENTS

2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008

0
Less than 30 ft

30 to less than 50 ft

50 to less than 75 ft

75 ft and over

Unk

Figure 53 – Deaths on trawl, gillnet, or longline vessels, by size
5

NUMBER OF INCIDENTS

2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008

0
Less than 30 ft

30 to less than 50 ft

50 to less than 75 ft

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

373

75 ft and over

Unk

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery
Figure 54 – Trawl, gillnet, and longline safety incident locations, FY 2001 – FY 2008

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

374

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery

6.2.4 Sectors
This action may increase the number of operating sectors from two to nineteen. In addition, it
proposes changes to the two existing sectors. Part of the rationale for the formation of sectors is to
promote efficient operations, reduced discards, and foster better stewardship of the resource. The
following sections briefly summarize the performance of the two existing sectors and, where
possible, attempts to determine if the goals have been met.

6.2.4.1

GB Cod Hook Sector

The GB Cod Hook sector consists of vessels that have agreed to use hook gear (longlines, tub
trawls, handlines), with quota that limits the catch of GB cod. Sector vessels operate primarily out
of Cape Cod, MA, with almost all landings by sector vessels occurring in Chatham MA. Most
sector vessels range from 25 to 70 feet in length. The GB Cod Hook Sector was the first sector
authorized operations under the sector management system adopted in Amendment 13, and began
operations in FY 2004. Fishing mortality is controlled through a quota on GB cod, and DAS are
used to control mortality on other groundfish stocks. The number of permits, GB cod allocations,
and GB cod landings (as reported in the sector annual reports) are shown in Table 111. Since its
formation this sector has seen a steady decline in the number of permits that are members. The
number of permits has declined more rapidly than the sector’s share of the GB cod TTAC, but
changes in calculating the share adopted by FW 40B may mask the actual decline in share. There
has been some movement between sectors: at least three of the permits in the Fixed Gear Sector
in 2008 were members of the Hook Sector in FY 2007.
As required by sector operating rules the sector submitted annual reports for every fishing year
from FY 2004 – FY 2007. Unless specifically stated, this section does not draw data from that
report but uses available NMFS databases instead. There are minor differences in GB cod
landings between the two data sources but there is not a consistent bias. No attempt was made to
account for the differences.
Table 111 – Number of permits, GB cod allocation, and GB cod landings (according to sector annual
report) for the GB Cod Hook Sector
FY
Number of Permits
GB Cod Allocation
Reported Landings
(% of TTAC/mt)
(mt)
2004
58
12.6/371
130
2005

11.7/455

2006

10.03/615

2007

8.02/675

2008

6.44/658

2009

8.09/284

6.2.4.1.1 Landings and Revenues
Species-specific landings and revenues for the permits in the sector are shown in Table 112 and
Table 113. These data are from the NMFS dealer database, not the annual sector reports. Looking
at the time series since the adoption of Amendment 13 in FY 2004 illustrates the effects of sector
operations on each permit’s landings and revenues, and can highlight changes in targeting
behavior.
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

375

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery

Total landings for sector vessels peaked at 2.7 million pounds in FY 2005 but declined to 1.4
million pounds in FY 2007. This represents a decline in landings of 48 percent. Groundfish, as a
percent of total landings, declined from 74 percent in FY 2004 to 40 percent in FY 2007. While
groundfish landings were highest in FY 2004, they have declined to about 600,000 pounds in FY
2007. Non-groundfish landings increased from about 600,000 pounds in FY 2004 to over a
million pounds in FY 2005 and 2006, before declining to about 866,000 pounds in FY 2007. Cod,
the primary target species for the sector, has remained relatively constant at between 200,000 and
280,000 pounds during the period. The sector also developed a fishery for haddock. Haddock
landings peaked in FY 2004 at over 1.4 million pounds but declined to about 350,000 pounds in
FY 2006 and FY 2007. The primary landing ports are Chatham and Harwichport, though small
amounts are landed in other Barnstable County ports.
Total revenues for sector vessels declined from $3.4 million in FY 2004 to $2.6 million in FY
2007, a decline of 24 percent, about half the decline in landings. Groundfish revenues as a percent
of total revenues declined from 69 percent to 41 percent over the same period. Groundfish
revenues were similar in FY 2004 and FY 2005 (about $2.3 million) but were less than half that
value in FY 2006 and FY 2007 (about $1 million). Cod revenues peaked in FY 2005 while
haddock revenues peaked in FY 2004. The sector has only harvested a small percentage of its
allocated cod quota.
This sector developed a SAP for haddock in CAI. This allowed the sector to increase its haddock
catches in FY 2004 and FY 2005, but there was a sharp decline in the sector’s haddock landings
in FY 2006 and FY 2007. Haddock revenues were the largest share of groundfish revenues for
this sector in every year.
Because sector membership has declined, the declines in landings and revenues might merely
reflect fewer sector members rather than other factors that affect catches. In order to evaluate how
sector economic performance has changed over time, total and groundfish revenues in each year
were divided by the number of permits in the sector to determine how the economic performance
of the sector has changed over the four year period. Total revenues per permit increased from
$58, 543 in FY 2004 to $102,647 in FY 2007. Groundfish revenues per permit peaked at $46,608
in FY 2005, declined to $28,720 in FY 2006, then rose to $41,924 in FY 2007.
The increase in total revenues per permit from FY 2004 to FY 2007 in spite of a decline in both
total landings and groundfish landings reflects increased landing of high value species. Most
notably, sector vessels increased their catches of whelk by nearly a factor of twelve during this
period. Lobster and revenues also increased.
Table 112 – Landings (pounds, live weight) for GB Cod Hook Sector vessels
SPECIES

COD
FLOUNDER, AM. PLAICE
FLOUNDER, SAND-DAB
FLOUNDER, WINTER
FLOUNDER, WITCH
FLOUNDER, YELLOWTAIL
HADDOCK
HAKE, WHITE
HALIBUT, ATLANTIC
POLLOCK

FY 2004
252,926
85
5
1,015
2
5
1,406,476
26,357
468
44,913

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

FY 2005
283,029
120
11
1,613
24
292
1,228,658
32,910
886
25,843

376

FY 2006
196,842
15

FY 2007
205,936
3

1,412

1,633

40
324,828
11,846
442
18,673

12
361,355
4,104
94
3,529

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery
SPECIES
POUT, OCEAN
REDFISH
WOLFFISHES
ANGLER
BASS, STRIPED
BLUEFISH
BONITO
BUTTERFISH
CATFISH, BLUE
CLAM, SOFT
CONCHS
CRAB, ROCK
CUNNER
CUSK
DOGFISH SMOOTH
DOGFISH SPINY
EEL, AMERICAN
FLOUNDER, SUMMER
HAKE MIX RED & WHITE
HAKE, OFFSHORE
HAKE, RED
HAKE, SILVER
JOHN DORY
LOBSTER
MACKEREL, ATLANTIC
PERCH, WHITE
QUAHOG
SCALLOP, BAY
SCALLOP, SEA
SCULPINS
SCUP
SEA BASS, BLACK
SKATE, SMOOTH
SKATE, THORNY
SKATE, WINTER(BIG)
SKATES
SQUID (LOLIGO)
TAUTOG
TUNA, BLUEFIN
WEAKFISH, SQUETEAGUE
WHELK, CHANNELED
WHELK, KNOBBED
Total

FY 2004

4
3,232
6,140
7,844
33,128
65,772

FY 2005

10,796
8,831
4,672
31,419
124,186
8

FY 2006

2,702
5,168
2,396
41,746
12,006

FY 2007

3,372
1,280
1,656
7,362
16,758
745

462
32,971
69,708

60
2,040
10,855
28
426
42,404
2,700
213,558

213
5,105

1,192

671
18,152
1,800
144,155

1,402
7,935
177,203
20
1,700

46
7,375
160
185
93

244

89,536

177,034
3,102
2
123,706
56
158,108

132,279
958

1,682
25,889
85
139,116
600

56,266

308,854

27,398

7,759
48,733
9

9,003
83,841

8,720
25,805

5,771
3,177
2,481
2,596

833
10,183
419
3,068
4,457
11,395

2,537
7,198

Conf.
Conf.

117,163
Conf.

228,123
Conf.

12,466
183
5,081
Conf.
394,116
Conf.

2,314,136

2,675,325

1,637,891

1,448,241

107
144,783
9
9,464
29,760

13
2

26,082
2,138
52,885

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

377

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery

Table 113 – Revenues (nominal dollars) for permits in the GB Cod Hook Sector vessels
SPECIES
FY 2004
FY 2005
FY 2006
FY 2007
COD
379,829
521,665
384,400
417,232
FLOUNDER, AM. PLAICE
120
200
31
7
FLOUNDER, SAND-DAB
9
12
FLOUNDER, WINTER
1,375
2,428
2,442
2,830
FLOUNDER, WITCH
2
68
FLOUNDER,
YELLOWTAIL
5
447
68
22
HADDOCK
1,894,165 1,680,191
610,122
616,160
HAKE, WHITE
20,131
37,157
16,368
6,135
HALIBUT, ATLANTIC
2,346
4,358
2,229
583
POLLOCK
21,944
17,779
10,651
1,390
POUT, OCEAN
3
REDFISH
1,833
10,266
2,545
2,419
WOLFFISHES
4,827
9,236
5,079
1,321
ANGLER
7,749
5,119
2,693
3,464
BASS, STRIPED
52,582
69,688
101,400
21,450
BLUEFISH
25,058
79,768
6,582
7,659
BONITO
20
BUTTERFISH
712
CATFISH, BLUE
101
CLAM, SOFT
3,456
301
1,855
CONCHS
1,357
651
CRAB, ROCK
924
15
CUNNER
233
707
1,420
CUSK
11,808
21,667
13,472
3,826
DOGFISH SMOOTH
615
438
DOGFISH SPINY
12,714
48,585
36,049
38,984
EEL, AMERICAN
16
FLOUNDER, SUMMER
52
385
4,749
HAKE MIX RED & WHITE
3,710
HAKE, OFFSHORE
24
4
HAKE, RED
49
1
961
HAKE, SILVER
15
21,599
JOHN DORY
94
LOBSTER
419,592
985,615
758,619
768,825
MACKEREL, ATLANTIC
2,218
673
594
PERCH, WHITE
2
QUAHOG
148
106,585
49,385
126
SCALLOP, BAY
122
SCALLOP, SEA
90,980
139,448
253,919
25,256
SCULPINS
1
SCUP
5,981
6,682
10,615
5,550
SEA BASS, BLACK
63,545
142,324
266,986
70,618
SKATE, SMOOTH
2
SKATE, THORNY
221
543
SKATE, WINTER(BIG)
1,091
2,824
2,303
SKATES
3,925
694
115
SQUID (LOLIGO)
2,171
2,446
14,542
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

378

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery
SPECIES
TAUTOG
TUNA, BLUEFIN
WEAKFISH,
SQUETEAGUE
WHELK, CHANNELED
Total

6.2.4.2

FY 2004
1,957
337,656

FY 2005
8,310

FY 2006
10,116
86,957

FY 2007
420
94,881

Conf.
3,365,059

145,554
2,675,325

309,766
1,637,891

Conf.
427,559
1,448,235

GB Cod Fixed Gear Sector

The Fixed Gear Sector consists of vessels that have agreed to use fixed gear (sink gillnets, tub
trawls, handlines), with quota that limits the catch of GB cod. Sector vessels operate primarily out
of Cape Cod, MA, with almost all landings by sector vessels occurring in Chatham MA. Most
sector vessels range from 35 to 5o feet in length. The sector was first authorized with the
implementation of FW 42 in November, 2006. Because of the late approval of this action, the first
full year of operations for the sector was FY 2007. There were sixteen permits listed on the letter
of authorization for this sector. The sector received 9.16 percent of the GB cod TAC for FY 2007,
or 771.1 mt of cod. Catch of other groundfish was regulated through the use of DAS. For FY
2009, 23 vessels have committed to the sector and the preliminary allocation of GB cod is
expected to be 11.64 percent of the TAC, or 408 mt.
As required by sector operating rules the Fixed Gear Sector submitted an annual report for FY
2007. Unless specifically stated, this section does not draw data from that report but uses
available NMFS databases instead. There are often differences between the two data sources. For
example, the sector’s FY 2007 annual report identified cod landings of 896,988 pounds, whereas
Table 114 below shows landings as 922,267 pounds, a difference of 3 percent. This section does
not attempt to identify the reason for those differences.

6.2.4.2.1 Landings and Revenues
Species-specific landings and revenues for the sixteen permits in the sector in FY 2007 are shown
in Table 114 and Table 115. These data are from the NMFS dealer database, not the annual sector
reports. While a time series is shown, it should be understood that the permits may have had
different owners in the years before FY 2007, and may not have used the same gear.
Nevertheless, looking at the time series since the adoption of Amendment 13 in FY 2004
illustrates the effects of sector operations on each permit’s landings and revenues in its first year
of operation. 99 percent of the landings and revenues (both total and groundfish) were landed in
Chatham, MA through the entire period.
From FY 2005 – FY 2006, between eight and ten of the permits in the sector in FY 2007 reported
landings through the dealer database. In FY 2007, ten permits reported landings, indicating little
change in participation in the fishery in the first year of operations. FY 2007 total landings were
1.4 times the average landings for FY 2004 – FY 2006, while nominal total revenues in FY 2007
were 1.5 times the average for the previous three fishing years. Groundfish landings were 1.7
times higher and groundfish revenues were 1.85 times higher in FY 2007 that the FY 2004 – FY
2006 average. Cod landings were about 418 mt, or 54 percent of the sector’s allocation. The
vessels nearly tripled their cod landings and revenues in FY 2007 compared to the average of the
previous three years. The proportion of landings and revenues due to groundfish also increased.
In FY 2007, groundfish landings accounted for 42 percent of landings by weight and 69 percent
in value, while in earlier years groundfish were between 28 and 38 percent of landings and
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

379

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery

between 52 and 58 percent of revenues. 95 percent of groundfish landings were using sink gillnet
gear and 4 percent were from handline, with the remainder attributed to various gears (note the
dealer database can have errors in reported gear codes). Of the permits that reported landings in
FY 2007, eight increased groundfish landings and two had reduced landings compared to the
average of the previous three years.
Landings of non-groundfish species increased by fifteen percent in FY 2007 when compared to
the previous three-year average. Most of the increase can be attributed to increased landings of
skates in FY 2007. FY 2007 landings of skates (all species, live weight) were 380,000 pounds
higher than the average of the previous three years. Much of the increase in skate landings
occurred in FY 2006, before the sector was operating for a full year, so it is not clear that the
skate increase can be attributed to shifting effort onto skates after joining the sector.
Cod landings by month are shown in Table 116, as a percentage of total cod landings. While one
year of data as a sector cannot be viewed as definitive, it appears the largest change in fishing
activity is that the sector landed more cod in October than in previous years. While the sector
requested an exemption from the May seasonal closure on Georges Bank, FY 2007 activity does
not appear to have focused on this month. The sector was authorized to operate beginning May 4,
2007.
Cod landings appear to have increased for two reasons. For the May through December period,
the sector vessels had more days absent in FY 2007 than in FY 2006 (1,217 to 740). In addition,
the landings of cod per day absent increased from 460 pounds/day absent during this period in FY
2006 compared to 740 pounds/day absent in FY 2007. This suggests that the vessels were able to
operate more efficiently absent the effort control restrictions.

6.2.4.2.2 Discards
One of the arguments for forming the Fixed Gear Sector was that by removing trip limit
restrictions the discards of cod by sink gillnet vessels would be reduced. Observer data was
examined to determine if there is evidence that this did occur. The sixteen permits on the sector’s
LOA for FY 2007 were linked to 18 hull numbers. Observed trips for these 18 hull numbers were
queried to determine landings and discards during the period FY 2004 through FY 2007. Only
sink gillnet trips in statistical areas 521, 522, 525, 526, 561, and 562 were considered, and only
those tows observed by a federal observer. Mesh size was not considered, since the question was
whether discards would be reduced in total, not whether this just occurred on large mesh trips. No
attempt was made to determine if vessel ownership was consistent through the period.
The number of trips observed ranged from 10 in FY 2006 to 40 in FY 2005 (Table 117).
Coverage was limited in the second half of the fishing year in all years, but particularly in FY
2006. For this reason, the ratio of discards/kept were calculated for half-year periods. The ratios
observed for vessels that were in the sector were also compared to the ratios observed for vessels
that were not in the sector. Results are shown in
Figure 55. The ratios for vessels in the sector tend to be slightly lower than those for vessels not in

the sector, even before sector formation. This makes it difficult to attribute the differences noted
in FY 2007 solely to sector formation. The ratio for sector vessels shows a slight declining trend
since FY 2005, and was at its lowest in the second half of FY 2007. The ratios for non-sector
vessels do not show the same consistent declining trend, and in fact, it peaks in the first half of
FY 2007. While this information suggests that the discard rates by vessels that chose to join
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

380

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery

sectors may be lower than those for non-sector vessels, using these data there does not seem to be
a dramatic change for sector vessels between the period before and after sector formation.
Discard ratios for sector vessels have ranged between 4 and 8 percent since FY 2005. The rate in
FY 2007 is slightly higher than that calculated by the sector itself - an annual rate of 0.029 in FY
2007. The sector’s calculated rate does seem to provide stronger evidence that discard rates by
sector vessels declined after sector formation.
Discard reasons are also reported by observers (Table 118). In FY 2007, the primary reason for
discards was that the fish were below minimum size. While not surprising that the “quota filled”
(i.e. trip limit reached) reason is absent after the sector began operating, it also appears that poor
quality is also less of a cause for discards after the sector was formed.
If computed on an annual basis, the ratio of cod discarded to cod landed for the Fixed Gear Sector
in FY 2007 was 0.0505. The CV (based on trips observed by federal observers) is about 1.02,
higher than the desired CV of 0.30. If applied to the dealer landings, discards would be estimated
at 46,574 pounds. Discards reported in the sector’s annual report totaled 26,772 pounds, or 57
percent of the discards estimated here. Note that the sector report used additional data from trips
observed by sector data collectors and video cameras to calculate discards monthly. These
additional data may provide a more precise estimate of discards than that limited to the federal
observers. The difference noted here amount to about two percent of the sector’s landed catch and
does not affect the determination that the sector remained within its TAC in FY 2007.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

381

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery

Table 114 – Landings (pounds, live weight) by permits in the Fixed Gear Sector in FY 2007
Species
FY 2004
FY 2005
FY 2006
FY 2007
COD
327,266
292,129
364,246
922,267
FLOUNDER, AM. PLAICE
264
252
110
226
FLOUNDER, SAND-DAB
6
FLOUNDER, WINTER
5,271
3,315
6,311
16,671
FLOUNDER, WITCH
192
309
252
373
FLOUNDER,
YELLOWTAIL
426
274
469
659
HADDOCK
218,163
313,298
118,632
92,693
HAKE, WHITE
14,801
13,206
6,765
6,786
HALIBUT, ATLANTIC
193
237
97
163
POLLOCK
177,442
181,509
194,856
203,691
REDFISH
2,899
24,195
16,508
78,648
WOLFFISHES
15,352
1,201
2,404
6,137
ANGLER
264,698
460,007
335,888
284,481
BASS, STRIPED
998
495
BLUEFISH
12,522
2,971
2,487
10,847
CATFISH, BLUE
7
CUNNER
60
6
111
188
CUSK
6,688
4,657
1,176
928
DOGFISH SMOOTH
13,145
DOGFISH SPINY
155,218
127,107
191,260
94,825
FLOUNDER, SUMMER
97
10
5
6
HAKE MIX RED & WHITE
68
17
HAKE, OFFSHORE
179
HAKE, RED
27
HAKE, SILVER
167
11
172
199
JOHN DORY
140
29
LOBSTER
4,472
7,080
15,576
14,802
MACKEREL, ATLANTIC
8,366
584
940
566
OTHER FISH
14
SEA BASS, BLACK
94
5
1
SHAD, AMERICAN
10
44
SHARK, NK
61
SKATE, BARNDOOR
2,915
SKATE, SMOOTH
625,721
SKATE, THORNY
18
SKATE, WINTER(BIG)
96,044
714,643
783,339
1,180,034
SKATES
415,165
7,124
521,308
255,602
TILEFISH, GOLDEN
141
215
95
103
TUNA, BLUEFIN
21,179
WHITING, KING
3
316
67
Total
2,374,185
2,157,991
2,576,473
3,171,059
Groundfish as % of total
32%
38%
28%
42%

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

382

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery

Table 115 – Revenues (nominal dollars) for permits in the Fixed Gear Sector in FY 2007
Species
FY 2004
FY 2005
FY 2006
FY 2007
COD
452,529
439,314
581,046
1,372,267
FLOUNDER, AM. PLAICE
315
319
192
321
FLOUNDER, SAND-DAB
3
FLOUNDER, WINTER
5,406
4,533
12,204
30,409
FLOUNDER, WITCH
295
547
644
818
FLOUNDER,
YELLOWTAIL
377
314
844
1,020
HADDOCK
265,171
499,712
191,107
150,282
HAKE, WHITE
6,439
12,277
7,251
6,627
HALIBUT, ATLANTIC
737
1,195
531
784
POLLOCK
71,769
98,588
91,927
89,214
REDFISH
1,189
17,878
12,825
62,539
WOLFFISHES
4,948
758
1,696
3,821
ANGLER
223,060
595,638
424,366
334,703
BASS, STRIPED
1,895
1,016
BLUEFISH
3,383
1,891
1,146
4,127
CATFISH, BLUE
10
CUNNER
98
12
51
106
CUSK
1,576
1,772
735
411
DOGFISH SMOOTH
3,135
DOGFISH SPINY
30,775
29,944
51,563
20,153
FLOUNDER, SUMMER
153
11
6
18
HAKE MIX RED & WHITE
25
9
HAKE, OFFSHORE
31
HAKE, RED
9
HAKE, SILVER
59
8
80
115
JOHN DORY
163
50
LOBSTER
19,358
29,940
65,167
67,116
MACKEREL, ATLANTIC
2,136
298
654
392
OTHER FISH
28
SEA BASS, BLACK
150
4
3
SHAD, AMERICAN
3
23
SHARK, NK
153
SKATE, BARNDOOR
514
SKATE, SMOOTH
87,589
SKATE, THORNY
3
SKATE, WINTER(BIG)
17,950
115,097
168,166
261,945
SKATES
62,396
1,411
110,361
69,951
TILEFISH, GOLDEN
240
400
174
255
TUNA, BLUEFIN
150,825
WHITING, KING
5
527
61
Grand Total
1,410,925
1,853,710
1,726,402
2,477,543
Groundfish as % of total
57%
58%
52%
69%

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

383

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery

Table 116 – Percent of cod landed by month for permits in the Fixed Gear Sector in FY 2007
MONTH
FY 2004
FY 2005
FY 2006
FY 2007
May
4.5%
3.6%
2.2%
0.4%
June
22.3%
13.6%
14.2%
8.3%
July
33.3%
29.1%
20.4%
31.9%
August
17.3%
27.7%
27.6%
28.1%
September
5.8%
8.3%
6.3%
8.6%
October
4.0%
2.9%
3.2%
12.6%
November
0.2%
3.4%
8.4%
5.2%
December
5.5%
1.5%
9.7%
2.6%
January
6.3%
8.3%
7.5%
1.9%
February
0.5%
1.3%
0.1%
0.3%
March
0.2%
0.2%
0.1%
0.0%
April
0.0%
0.3%
0.1%
0.1%

Table 117 – Observed sink gillnet trips on Georges Bank for vessels that were in the Fixed Gear
Sector in FY 2007
2004
2005
2006
2007
1. May – July
22
15
3
11
2. August – October
11
16
4
5
3. November – January
4
6
2
4
4. February - April
2
3
1
4
Total
39
40
10
24

Figure 55 – Discard/kept ratios for GB cod; vessels in Fixed Gear Sector in FY 2007

Sink Gillnet Cod Discard/Kept Ratios
0.40
Discard/Kept Ratio

0.35

Sector
Non_Sector

0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05

Fishing Year - Semi-Annual Period

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

384

2007-2

2007-1

2006-2

2006-1

2005-2

2005-1

2004-2

2004-1

0.00

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery

Table 118 – Cod discard reasons for vessels in the Fixed Gear Sector in FY 2007
FY
FY
FY
FY
Reason
2004
2005
2006
2007
Below legal size
7.9% 14.4% 34.4% 82.8%
Quota filled
12.9% 32.7%
0.0%
0.0%
Poor Quality
7.2% 19.3% 16.9%
1.6%
Poor Quality – Sand Fleas
38.3% 23.7% 11.4%
4.9%
Poor Quality – Seals
2.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Poor Quality – Sharks
5.1%
0.6% 28.6%
0.0%
Poor Quality – Whales
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
2.8%
Poor Quality – Hagfish
5.7%
9.2%
0.0%
7.9%
Poor Quality – Gear Damage
0.0%
0.0%
8.7%
0.0%
High Grading
21.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

6.2.4.3

Summary

The formation of sectors is widely viewed as an alternative to the inefficiencies of the effort
control system. Increasingly stringent management measures have led to increased interest in
sectors – an additional seventeen may be formed by this action. There is a widespread belief that
sectors will reduce regulatory discards, will lead to harvesting a larger proportion of the TTAC or
ACL, and will improve economic performance of the fishery. The limited experiences of the two
existing sectors do not provide support for all of these expectations.
The GB cod hook sector has harvested only a fraction of its allocated TAC in spite of exemptions
from trip limits, gear restrictions, and a seasonal closed area on GB. Clearly there are other
factors at work that prevent this sector from achieving its catch goals: candidates include stock
sizes lower than estimated, competition with dogfish or seals and other predators, or fish
distribution. While it is not clear whether the sector members would have done better or worse
fishing as non-sector vessels, the number of permits in this sector also declined significantly since
its initial formation. There were 58 permits enrolled in the GB Cod Hook Sector in FY 2004 and
the number had declined to 19 permits by FY 2008. This suggests that at least some members
believe fishing as a non-sector vessel was preferable to sector membership, but perhaps it is more
appropriate to consider total sector membership over this period. In FY 2007, membership in both
sectors totaled 41 permits and the number of permits expected to be in both sectors in FY 2009 is
47. This is a 15 percent decline from the 58 permits that initially joined the hook sector in FY
2004.
The Fixed Gear Sector had operated for only one full year when this report was drafted. Again,
they have not harvested their full allocation of GB cod. There is some evidence that economic
performance of its members improved by forming a sector and sector formation allowed them to
more effectively target GB cod. Discard rates may also have decreased though the one year of
data available is not conclusive on this point.
These sectors have not been subject to the increased monitoring and enforcement costs that they
will incur if proposed Amendment 16 measures are adopted. This makes it difficult to use these
sectors to determine if sectors can be financially self-sustaining entities under the proposed
management program.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

385

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery

6.2.5 Recreational Harvesting Component
The affected environment for recreational fisheries described in Framework 42 focuses primarily
on Gulf of Maine cod. The Council is considering developing recreational allocations and
accountability measures for additional groundfish species. These species include winter flounder,
pollock, and haddock. This section updates information provide in Framework 42 for Gulf of
Maine cod and provides baseline descriptions of recreational fisheries for winter flounder,
pollock, and haddock.
Data to describe these recreational fisheries come from two sources; the Marine Recreational
Information Program (MRIP, formerly the MRFSS) and recreational party/charter logbook data.
The MRIP provides the primary source of data for catch statistics including harvested and
released catch, distance from shore, size distribution of harvested catch, catch class (numbers of
fish per angler trip), and seasonal distribution of harvested catch. For the party/charter mode
logbook data are used to characterize numbers of participating vessels, trips, and passengers.

6.2.5.1

Winter Flounder

The recreational fishery for winter flounder takes place predominately in State waters with less
than 2% of total catch coming from beyond the three mile limit (Table 119). Total catch of all
winter flounder has declined from 1.6 million fish in 2001 to 364 thousand fish in 2007, a 77%
reduction in catch.

Table 119 - Winter Flounder catch (A+B1+B2) by distance from shore (1,000’s of fish)
Calendar Year
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007

<= 3 mi.
241
98
157
119
71
148
74

> 3 Mi.
27
15
15
9
1
6
4

Inland
1326
695
675
374
481
508
286

Total Catch
1593
809
847
502
553
662
364

EEZ Proportion
1.7%
1.9%
1.8%
1.8%
0.3%
0.9%
1.0%

Under the Multispecies plan winter flounder is comprised of three stocks, but given the
characteristics of the recreational fishery only the Gulf of Maine and Southern New
England/Mid-Atlantic winter flounder assessments include recreational data. According to
GARM III about 87% of winter flounder catch came from the SNE/MA stock (Table 120). These
data show substantial declines in catch although the decline in the SNE/MA stock (79.7%) was
higher than the decline (57.2% in GOM winter flounder.
Winter flounder is harvested by party/charter, private boat and shore-based anglers. The majority
of winter flounder are harvested by private boat anglers averaging 74.4% and 77.3% of GOM and
SNE/MA harvested fish, respectively (Table 121). Note that the MRIP estimate of zero harvested
GOM winter flounder in the party/charter mode during 2006 was due to the fact that winter
flounder was not encountered through the creel survey in that year. While it is unlikely that no
winter flounder at all were harvested by party/charter anglers in the Gulf of Maine, this result is a
reflection of the low harvest rates of winter flounder in the party/charter mode.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

386

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery

Table 120 - Winter flounder catch disposition by stock (1,000’s of fish)
Gulf of Maine Stock
SNE/MA Stock
Calendar Catch
Harvested Released
Catch
Harvested Released
Year
(A+B1+B2) (A+B1)
Alive (B2)
(A+B1+B2) (A+B1)
Alive (B2)
2001
173
72
102
1421
892
528
2002
101
61
40
707
408
299
2003
86
52
34
761
572
189
2004
61
41
20
442
344
98
2005
79
40
39
484
215
269
2006
94
53
41
591
273
318
2007
74
48
26
289
215
74

Table 121 - Winter flounder harvest by stock area and mode (numbers of fish)
Gulf of Maine Stock
SNE/MA Stock
Party/
Private
Party/
Private
Year
Charter
Boat
Shore
Charter
Boat
Shore
2001
1,387
58,504
9,269
34,574
638,583
156,550
2002
441
48,502
10,273
28,772
268,754
98,786
2003
1,721
39,926
11,212
51,146
448,776
42,264
2004
312
25,951
12,568
47,526
221,769
75,718
2005
6,150
21,264
17,729
6,502
147,270
43,744
2006
0
46,931
5,102
2,214
191,811
51,009
2007
5,283
36,789
7,157
1,089
200,292
6,151

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

387

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery

On a trip basis, recreational anglers may retain one or more fish. For example, during 2001 60%
of SNE/MA winter flounder kept was caught on trips that harvested 5 or fewer fish and 90% of
was kept on trips landing 10 or fewer fish (Figure 56). In both 2005 and 2006, all retained
SNE/MA winter flounder were caught on trips were 10 or fewer fish were landed.
Figure 56 - Cumulative Percent of SNE/MA Winter Flounder Kept by Number of fish per Angler (all
modes combined)

100.0%
90.0%
Cumulative Percent

80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
1

10 11 12 13 14 15+

Number of SNE/MA Winter Flounder Kept
2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Even though trips that retained a small number of SNE/MA winter flounder represent a low
proportion of the total number of winter flounder kept, these trips represent a comparatively
larger proportion of total trips where winter flounder were kept. For example, trips where only
one winter flounder were kept averaged 13% of total winter flounder kept, but averaged 38% of
trips (Figure 57). Trips landing 5 fish accounted for 89% of total trips as compared to 60% of
retained winter flounder.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

388

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery
Figure 57 - Cumulative Percent of SNE/MA Winter Flounder Trips by Keep Class (all modes
combined)
100.0%
90.0%

Cumulative Percent

80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
1

15+

Number of SNE/MA Winter Flounder Kept
2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

In the Gulf of Maine, trips that kept one winter flounder accounted for an average of 16% of total
retained fish during 2001 to 2007 (Figure 58). During these years, these trips accounted for an
average of 41% of total trips where GOM winter flounder were kept (Figure 59). During 2001
two-thirds of harvested winter flounder were on trips that kept 5 or fewer fish. Since 2001 the
proportion of total GOM winter flounder on trips landing 5 or fewer fish has ranged from a high
of 90% during 2006 to 46% during 2004. In terms of trips, occasions where 5 or fewer GOM
winter flounder were retained ranged from 82% of total trips during 2002 to 97% of trips during
2006. Since 2001, trips where 10 or fewer winter flounder accounted for less than 100% of
harvested catch have only occurred in 2002 and 2006. Note that in each of these two years trips
where more than 10 fish were harvested accounted for 3 to 6% of total harvest. Further, since
2002 harvested winter flounder in the GOM did not exceed 8 fish in any year except 2006.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

389

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery
Figure 58 - Cumulative Percent of GOM Winter flounder harvest by number of fish per angler (all
modes combined)
1
0.9

Cumulative Percent

0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
1

Number of GOM Winter Flounder Kept
2001

2002

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

2003

2004

390

2005

2006

2007

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery

Figure 59 - Cumulative Percent of Trips Keeping GOM Winter Flounder (all modes combined)
100.0%
90.0%

Cumulative Percent

80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
1

Number of GOM Winter Flounder Kept
2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

As part of the field intercept survey interviewers request to measure and weigh fish that are in the
possession of each respondent. During 2001 522 winter flounder were measured as part of the
intercept survey (Table 122). With a decline in harvested winter flounder the number of occasions
where winter flounder were encountered by MRIP interviewers declined resulting in declining
numbers of measured fish to fewer than 100 in 2007. For this reason, there available data were
deemed insufficient to estimate a size distribution of harvested catch by stock area or by mode.
For this reason, the size distribution of harvested winter flounder was estimated by pooling across
all modes and stock areas.

Table 122 - Number of Measured Winter Flounder by Year
Year
Number of Measured Fish
2001
522
2002
293
2003
275
2004
316
2005
152
2006
136
2007
94

During 2001 to 2005 between 7% and 15% of the harvested winter flounder were less than 12inches (Figure 60). In 2006 and 2007, 7% and 5% respectively, of the winter flounder harvest was
less than 12-inches. Across all years nearly 98% of the winter flounder harvest was 17-inches or
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

391

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery

less. This means that between 80 and 90% of winter flounder harvest was between 12 and 17
inches in length.
Figure 60. Size Distribution of Winter Flounder Harvest
1
0.9

Cumulative Percent

0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
8

Legth (inches)
2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

In the SNE/MA area winter flounder is predominately harvested during wave 2 (March and April)
in the party/charter mode as except for 2006, 80 to 100% of all harvested fish were caught by the
end of April (Table 123). The majority of winter flounder in the private boat and shore modes
combined is also caught relatively early in the year although, the private boat/shore mode season
extends into wave 3 (May and June).
During 2001 to 2004, at least 93% of the party/charter harvest occurred during waves 2 and 3 in
the Gulf of Maine (Table 124). This pattern appears to have shifted to later waves as the majority
of harvested GOM winter flounder were taken by party/charter anglers during wave 4 (August
and September). Winter flounder harvested by private boat or shore mode anglers also tended to
be taken somewhat later in the year during 2005 to 2007 compared to 2001 to 2004.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

392

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery
Table 123 - Proportion of SNE/MA Winter Flounder Harvested by Wave
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Wave
Party/Charter Mode
2
98.7%
97.6%
82.7%
85.1%
99.7%
43.2%
3
1.3%
2.4%
17.3%
14.2%
0.0%
54.7%
4
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
5
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.6%
0.2%
0.0%
6
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.2%
2.0%
Private Boat/Shore Mode
2
60.9%
23.0%
54.8%
42.2%
47.3%
43.4%
3
28.1%
7.0%
28.1%
33.8%
35.3%
56.4%
4
0.3%
0.2%
0.3%
1.1%
0.0%
0.0%
5
2.2%
12.1%
7.2%
14.3%
0.0%
0.2%
6
8.5%
57.7%
9.6%
8.6%
17.5%
0.0%
2
60.9%
23.0%
54.8%
42.2%
47.3%
43.4%

Table 124 - Proportion of GOM Winter Flounder Harvested by Wave
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Wave
Party/Charter Mode
2
89.5%
94.7%
73.4%
79.4%
0.0%
3
6.3%
2.3%
18.7%
19.2%
26.0%
4
3.4%
0.0%
8.0%
0.0%
74.0%
5
0.0%
2.6%
0.0%
0.8%
0.0%
6
0.7%
0.4%
0.0%
0.6%
0.0%
Private Boat/Shore Mode
2
50.0%
18.7%
22.4%
30.5%
0.0%
3
33.6%
25.5%
40.1%
35.2%
33.2%
4
5.1%
8.3%
7.4%
23.7%
66.8%
5
2.4%
7.2%
13.6%
4.2%
0.0%
6
9.0%
40.3%
16.5%
6.5%
0.0%
2
50.0%
18.7%
22.4%
30.5%
0.0%

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

393

2007
100.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
92.3%
7.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
92.3%

2006

2007

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
34.6%
48.4%
17.1%
0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
7.4%
82.5%
10.1%
0.0%
0.0%

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery

6.2.5.2

Haddock

Total recreational catches of haddock in have been increasing during 2001 to 2007 from 232.8
thousand fish to 507.8 thousand haddock; an increase of 118% (Table 125). The overwhelming
majority of haddock are caught in the EEZ as during 2001 to 2006 over 98% of haddock were
caught outside of state waters. In 2007 the number of haddock caught inside three miles from
shore increased from no more than 13 thousand fish to 103 thousand.
Table 125 - Total Haddock Catch by Distance from Shore
Year
<= 3 mi.
> 3 Mi.
2001
4.6
228.2
2002
8.4
247.2
2003
6.9
373.7
2004
1.5
400.4
2005
9.1
565.0
2006
12.5
445.7
2007
103.2
404.6

Total
232.8
255.6
380.6
402.0
574.1
458.2
507.8

EEZ Proportion
98.0%
96.7%
98.2%
99.6%
98.4%
97.3%
79.7%

Haddock are known to be harvested by recreational anglers in both the Gulf of Maine and on
Georges Bank. However, 99.7% of haddock were caught in the Gulf of Maine during 2001 to
2007. For this reason, harvest rates on Georges Bank haddock are too low to provide reliable
estimates of recreational catch which is the reason recreational catch is not included in the
Georges Bank haddock assessment. In the Gulf of Maine, haddock has been a recreational target
of increased interest particularly as recreational measures implemented for cod have become
more restrictive. Recreational catch increased in every year from 232.7 thousand fish during 2001
to 560.9 thousand fish during 2005 (Table 126). The number of haddock caught in 2006 dropped
to 442.1 thousand fish but increased to 503.6 thousand haddock during 2007.
Table 126 - GOM Haddock Catch Disposition in Numbers (1,000’s) (GARM III)
Harvested
Released Alive
Year
Catch (A+B1+B2)
(A+B1)
(B2)
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007

232.7
255.3
380.7
420.9
560.9
442.1
503.6

120.4
83.3
119.8
278.5
444.7
277.9
398.2

112.3
172
260.9
142.4
116.2
164.2
105.4

Haddock are harvested in the Gulf of Maine by both party/charter and private boat anglers.
During 2001 to 2007 harvest by the two modes averaged 47% party/charter and 53% private boat
(Table 127). Harvest by party/charter anglers more than doubled from 2003 to 2004 and doubled
again from 2004 to 2005. Since 2005, party/charter harvest has been declining to 105 thousand
fish in 2007. Private boat harvest also increased significantly from 2003 through 2005 but
declined sharply to 88 thousand haddock in 2006 before rebounding to 236 thousand haddock
during 2007. The reason for such a large one year change in private boat harvest is uncertain.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

394

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery

Table 127 - Gulf of Maine Haddock Harvested by Mode (numbers of fish)
Year
Party/Charter
Private Boat
2001
60,773
56,536
2002
31,249
47,832
2003
53,938
65,586
2004
118,368
147,133
2005
225,843
211,363
2006
177,921
87,683
2007
104,946
235,806

On average, 54% of GOM haddock harvested by party/charter anglers occurred on trips where 3
or fewer haddock were kept, while 92% of harvest occurred on trips that caught 10 or fewer fish
were kept (Figure 61). The distribution of harvest by keep class during 2004 to 2006 is suggestive
of a trend toward higher numbers of haddock kept by angler trip. That is, the cumulative
distribution of harvest by keep class lies rightward of the cumulative distributions for prior years.
For example, trips where 5 or fewer fish were kept accounted for 62% of harvested GOM
haddock during 2004 to 2006 compared to 81% of total harvest during 2001 to 2003. Note that
the distribution of harvest by keep class during 2007 was similar to that of the distributions
estimated for 2001 to 2003.
Figure 61- Distribution of Kept Fish per Angler Trip for GOM Haddock Party/Charter Mode
100.0%
90.0%

Cumulative Percent

80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%

20
21
+

18
19

16
17

14
15

12
13

9
10
11

0.0%

Number of GOM Haddock Kept
2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

In the party/charter mode 45% of trips that landed GOM haddock kept only one fish (Figure 62).
Trips where 3 or fewer GOM haddock were retained accounted for an average of 81% of
occasions where GOM haddock were kept during 2001 to 2007. That is, trips on which 3 or fewer
fish were kept accounted for 27% more of party/charter angler trips as compared to the number of
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

395

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery

haddock retained. However, as the number of kept haddock increases the difference between the
cumulative distribution of retained fish and trips converges. For example, during 2001 to 2007 the
cumulative percent of retained haddock and number of trips averaged 92% and 97% respectively
when 10 or fewer fish were kept. In terms of management implications this means that at high
potential bag limits for GOM haddock in the party/charter mode the biological impact on haddock
and affected angler trips will be roughly proportional to one another. However, at lower potential
bag limits the proportional impact on haddock will be larger than the proportional impact on
affected trips and that this divergence between haddock and angler trips gets larger as the number
of kept haddock gets lower.
Figure 62 - Cumulative Percent of Party/Charter Angler Trips that Retained GOM Haddock
100.0%
90.0%

Cumulative Percent

80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%

Number of GOM Haddock Kept
2001

2002

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

2003

396

2004

2005

2006

2007

20
21
+

18
19

15
16

11
12

9
10

0.0%

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery

Compared to party/charter mode anglers the distribution of harvest by keep class by private boat
anglers displays more inter-annual variability (Figure 62). However, the general shift toward
higher numbers of fish kept on fishing trips evident in the party/charter mode is also evident in
the private boat mode including calendar year 2007. During 2001 to 2004 private boat anglers did
not harvest more than 10 fish per trip. However, during 2006 to 2007, 88% of harvested GOM
haddock occurred on trips that kept 10 or fewer fish meaning that 12% of total harvest occurred
on trips that landed more than 10 haddock.
Figure 63 - Distribution of Numbers of GOM Haddock Kept per Angler for Private Boat Mode
100.0%
90.0%

Cumulative Percent

80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
1

15+

Number of GOM Haddock Kept
2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

During 2001 to 2007 the proportion of private boat angler trips averaged 40% of all trips that kept
GOM haddock (Figure 9). Occasions where three or fewer haddock were retained accounted for
an average of 75% of during 2001 to 2007 compared to 47% of total numbers of GOM haddock
kept.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

397

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery

Figure 64 - Cumulative Percent of Private Boat Mode Trips that Kept GOM Haddock by Keep Class
100.0%
90.0%

Cumulative Percent

80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
1

15+

Number of GOM Haddock Kept
2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

The number of measured haddock ranged from 5 to 42 fish in the private boat mode but was at
least 100 fish in every year in the party/charter mode (Table 128). The MRIP changed its
sampling methods for the party/charter mode beginning in 2004 in the North Atlantic region. As
part of this change MRIP surveyors were placed on-board party boats to weigh and measure fish
as they were harvested as well as fish that were released. This change increased the number of
measured haddock to over 900 fish in 2004 and more than 1000 haddock in each year during
2005 to 2007. The sampling strategy also measured over 100 released haddock every year during
2005 to 2007. Given the low numbers of measured haddock in the private boat mode and in the
party/charter mode during 2001 a reliable size distribution was not possible to estimate. Whether
the size distribution of harvested haddock differs across fishing modes is uncertain.

Table 128 - Number of Measured Gulf of Maine Haddock by Mode and Catch Disposition
Year
Party/Charter Kept
Private Boat Kept
Party Released
2001
20
5
2002
111
8
2003
194
16
2004
923
7
2005
1650
42
138
2006
1156
15
216
2007
1056
12
135

The number of measured haddock in the party/charter mode during 2004 to 2007 includes fish
measured in both the party and charter modes. However, the large increase in sampling occurred
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

398

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery

only in the party mode since these vessels tend to be larger and can accommodate an MRIP
surveyor. This means that the length data for these years will primarily reflect the size distribution
in the party mode which may or may not be similar to that of charter boat anglers.
The minimum size for haddock changed several times between August 1, 2002 and May 1, 2004.
From January to August the size limit was 19-inches then was raised to 23-inches until July, 2003
when the haddock size limit was lowered to 21-inches. Amendment 13, implemented May 1,
2004 returned the haddock size limit to 19-inches. The size distribution of harvested haddock
reflects these changes as the distribution for 2002 and 2003 is truncated at 19-inches (Figure 65).
Given the size limits that were in place during these two years one may have expected the size
distribution to be even more truncated than they were. However, the MRIP data are annual which
does not fully reflect size changes made either based on a fishing year or at some other date
during a calendar year. Additionally, the size limit changes at the Federal level may not have been
made the states. Since the majority of recreational fishery enforcement takes place dock-side
enforcement of possession and size limits usually reflect state regulations. During 2004 to 2007
the size distribution of harvested GOM haddock has remained relatively stable. On average, for
2001 – 2007 12% of the party/charter harvest was 18-inches or less while the majority of harvest
(88%) was at least 19-inches.

Figure 65 - Size Distribution of Kept GOM Haddock for Party/Charter Mode
1
0.9

Cumulative Percent

0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
9

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32
Length (inches)
2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

In addition to measuring retained catch on-board party vessels MRIP surveyors measure fish that
are released. During 2005 to 2007 less than 1% of released GOM haddock were 19-inches or
greater (Figure 66). Thus, virtually all legal sized haddock are retained by party boat anglers. On

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

399

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery

average, 17” GOM haddock have accounted for the largest percentage (43%) of released fish
while an 18” haddock accounted for 12% of released catch.
Figure 66 - Distribution of Released GOM Haddock by Party Mode Anglers
1
0.9

Cumulative Percent

0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
9

Released Length (inches)
2005

2006

2007

The seasonal pattern of GOM haddock harvest differs somewhat between party/charter and
private boat anglers. Although inter-annual differences occur, on average the proportion of GOM
haddock harvested in the party/charter mode was similar from May through September ranging
between 15 and 18% during 2001 to 2007 (Table 129). The tendency for GOM haddock harvest
in the party/charter mode to be roughly evenly spread from May to September was also evident
during more recent years from 2005 to 2007. After September party/charter harvest of GOM
haddock tapers off to less than 1% of total annual harvest in November and December before
picking up again in March and April.
In the private boat mode GOM haddock harvest tended to spike during April or May and again in
August. Relatively little GOM haddock private boat mode harvest occurred October through
March. Harvest tended to pick up in April and May followed by a drop-off during the month of
June.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

400

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery

Table 129 - Monthly Proportion of GOM Haddock Retained by Mode
Month
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Party Charter Mode
Mar
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.6%
8.1%
Apr
2.8%
10.8%
10.8%
5.7%
18.0%
May
25.1%
21.9%
19.7%
13.7%
20.1%
Jun
4.5%
43.5%
8.9%
3.1%
14.7%
Jul
36.7%
4.7%
5.9%
10.0%
14.5%
Aug
9.5%
5.9%
9.8%
43.3%
12.9%
Sep
8.7%
5.7%
29.7%
11.6%
5.9%
Oct
12.3%
7.1%
12.0%
9.1%
5.2%
Nov
0.4%
0.0%
3.1%
0.0%
0.0%
Dec
0.0%
0.4%
0.0%
1.8%
0.6%
Private Boat
Mar
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Apr
0.8%
44.2%
5.7%
0.1%
43.7%
May
40.5%
11.5%
22.8%
37.2%
18.4%
Jun
18.5%
1.7%
4.7%
2.2%
6.7%
Jul
14.3%
7.6%
26.0%
5.8%
3.5%
Aug
10.9%
33.3%
10.5%
12.1%
21.6%
Sep
0.0%
1.8%
29.6%
38.0%
5.1%
Oct
14.9%
0.0%
0.7%
0.4%
0.9%
Nov
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
2.9%
0.2%
Dec
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.2%
0.0%

6.2.5.3

2006

2007

4.4%
16.7%
18.7%
16.9%
11.1%
10.6%
16.6%
3.8%
1.1%
0.0%

0.0%
3.5%
9.4%
18.5%
29.2%
9.2%
28.0%
2.2%
0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%
19.5%
5.6%
40.7%
31.1%
1.3%
1.9%
0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
13.3%
9.5%
10.7%
10.1%
26.0%
30.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

Pollock

Recreational catches of pollock were over one million fish in 2001 but have declined steadily to
239 thousand fish in 2007 (Table 130). During 2001 to 2007 the EEZ accounted for an average of
49% of total pollock catch. For reasons that are uncertain, the split between the EEZ and state
waters has exceeded 50% in either state or EEZ waters in alternating years. In state waters the
proportion of pollock caught inland as compared to other state waters has ranged from a high of
64% in 2003 to a time series low of just under 15% in 2004.

Table 130 - Pollock Catch in Numbers by Distance from Shore (1,000’s)
Total
EEZ
Calendar Year <= 3 mi. > 3 Mi.
Inland
Catch
Proportion
2001
367.1
528.6
162.3
1,058.0
50.0%
2002
179.0
190.3
126.9
496.3
38.3%
2003
59.2
189.5
106.9
356.1
53.2%
2004
170.8
107.3
29.3
307.6
34.9%
2005
39.4
178.3
36.3
254.1
70.2%
2006
67.7
120.6
89.4
278.2
43.4%
2007
76.3
126.9
29.7
239.0
53.1%

As noted above, total recreational catch of pollock has declined by 77%. However, the number of
pollock harvested has not declined by the same proportion. Harvested pollock has declined by

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

401

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery

nearly 55% as the proportion of pollock catch that was harvested increased from one-third of total
catch during 2001 to two-thirds of total catch during 2007 (Table 131).
Table 131 - Pollock Catch by Disposition in Numbers (1,000’s)
Year
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007

Catch (A+B1+B2)
1058.0
496.3
356.1
307.6
254.1
278.2
239.0

Harvested (A+B1)
355.7
239.2
158.5
223.7
156.8
175.1
161.2

Released Alive
(B2)
702.3
257.1
197.6
83.9
97.3
103.1
77.8

Pollock are harvested by anglers in a variety of different fishing modes. Although pollock are
harvested by shore-based anglers, the majority of pollock are harvested by private boat anglers as
the proportion of private boat harvest ranged from 56% during 2007 to 82% during 2003 (Table
132). The number of pollock harvested by party/charter anglers was as low as 23 thousand fish
during both 2002 and 2003, but was at least twice as great in all other years.

Table 132 - Number of Harvested Pollock by Mode
Year
Party/Charter
Private Boat
2001
87,345
242,015
2002
22,846
183,603
2003
22,586
134,875
2004
71,638
144,873
2005
60,762
92,764
2006
56,993
121,686
2007
47,030
83,935

Shore
13,762
33,988
7,117
8,703
3,931
0
18,840

The distribution of numbers of pollock kept by party/charter anglers has been relatively stable.
On average, just over half of pollock retained by party/charter anglers occurred on trips landing 4
or fewer fish (Figure 67). During 2001 to 2007 the number of fish accounting for at least half of
kept pollock ranged between 3 or fewer to 6 or fewer pollock per angler trip. Although
party/charter anglers were observed keeping up to 30 pollock on a trip, keep rates that exceeded
12 fish were not consistently observed in every year. However, keep rates above 12 pollock
accounted for an average of 14% of total pollock retained by party/charter anglers, but ranged
between 7% and 27%.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

402

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery
Figure 67 - Distribution of kept pollock by number of fish per angler in the party/charter mode
100.0%
90.0%

Cumulative Percent

80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
1

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 20 21 23 24 25 30
Number of Kept Pollock

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Trips that kept four or fewer pollock averaged 84% of total angler trips that retained pollock
during 2001 to 2007 (Figure 68). Compared to the cumulative distribution of retained pollock, the
cumulative distribution of trips is more steeply sloped asymptotically approaching 100% at lower
keep levels. For example, the distribution of trips that kept pollock reaches 90% at trips that
retained six or fewer pollock. This level of kept pollock accounted for an average of 66% of total
pollock during 2001 to 2007. That is, the remaining 10% of party/charter trips that retained more
than six pollock accounted for 34% of total retained fish.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

403

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery
Figure 68 - Cumulative Percent of Party/Charter Mode Trips Keeping Pollock by Number Kept per
Angler Trip
100.0%
90.0%

Cumulative Percent

80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
1

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 20 21 23 24 25 30
Number of Kept Pollock

2001

2002

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

2003

404

2004

2005

2006

2007

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery

Compared to party/charter anglers the distribution of numbers of pollock kept by angler trip in the
private boat/shore mode displayed considerably more variability (Figure 69). The number of
pollock kept per angler that accounted for at least 50% of total kept catch ranged from 4 or fewer
fish to as many as 12 or fewer pollock per trip.
Figure 69 - Cumulative Percent of kept pollock by numbers of pollock per angler trip in the private
boat/shore mode.
100.0%
90.0%

Cumulative Percent

80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
1

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 17 19 20 21 24 25 30 35 40
Number of Kept Pollock

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

As was the case for the party/charter mode the cumulative percent of trips approaches 100% more
rapidly than the cumulative percent of retained pollock (Figure 70). That is, on average, twothirds of private boat angler trips kept four or fewer pollock while these trips accounted for
approximately one-third of all retained pollock. Similarly, 90% of trips keeping at least ten
pollock accounted for only two-thirds of all retained pollock. Note that like the party/charter
mode, this means that 10% of angler trips that landed more than 10 fish accounted for an average
of one-third of recreational pollock kept. The management implication for pollock is that
relatively high bag limits would have proportionally larger impacts on pollock as compared to its
impact on the number of trips that keep pollock.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

405

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery
Figure 70 - Cumulative Percent of Private Boat Mode Trips Keeping Pollock by Number Kept per
Angler Trip
100.0%
90.0%

Cumulative Percent

80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
1

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 17 19 20 21 24 25 30 35 40
Number of Kept Pollock

2001

2002

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

2003

406

2004

2005

2006

2007

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery

The number of pollock measured by MRIP interviewers ranged from more than 600 pollock
during 2007 to less than 70 fish during both 2001 and 2002 (Table 133). Due to small sample size
a size distribution for calendar years 2001 and 2002 were not estimated. Further, sample sizes by
fishing mode were not sufficient to estimate a length distribution by fishing mode so the size
distribution of harvested pollock was estimated by pooling all data across modes.

Table 133 - Total number of measured pollock in all fishing modes
Year
Measured Pollock
2001
66
2002
37
2003
247
2004
354
2005
597
2006
419
2007
612

Measured pollock during 2003 to 2007 ranged from as small as 4-inches to 40-inches (Figure 71).
Note that this range represents the limit of observed pollock harvested during 2001 to 2007. At
the lower end of the size distribution pollock under 19-inches accounted for about 10% of total
recreational harvest while at the upper end of the size distribution pollock measuring 30-inches or
more accounted for another 10% of the recreational harvest. This means that 80% of the
recreational harvest of pollock was between 19 and 30-inches in length.
Figure 71 - Size distribution of harvested pollock pooled across all modes
1
0.9

Cumulative Percent

0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1

Length (inches)
2003

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

2004

2005

407

2006

2007

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery

Pollock harvest occurs somewhat earlier in the year in the private boat/shore mode compared to
the party/charter mode (Table 134). In most years nearly 90% of pollock in the private boat/shore
mode was harvested during waves 3 and 4 (March – June). By contrast about 80% of the
party/charter harvest of pollock occurred during waves 4 and 5 (May – August). Thus, wave 4 is
an important season for all fishing modes whereas, wave 3 was more important for private boat
and shore mode anglers and wave 5 tended to be more important for party/charter anglers.
Table 134 - Proportion of Pollock Harvested by Wave and Mode
Wave
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Party/Charter Mode
2
0.0%
0.4%
6.2%
0.4%
0.0%
3
10.8%
16.2%
5.6%
11.2%
8.0%
4
44.2%
45.0%
57.0%
40.7%
42.4%
5
44.1%
36.8%
29.2%
44.4%
37.7%
6
0.8%
1.6%
2.1%
3.2%
11.9%
Private Boat/Shore Mode
2
0.0%
1.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
3
28.2%
50.2%
21.6%
17.4%
19.4%
4
47.3%
44.1%
64.3%
71.0%
71.5%
5
23.8%
4.0%
9.6%
11.3%
9.1%
6
0.6%
0.5%
4.5%
0.3%
0.0%

6.2.5.4

2006

2007

0.6%
20.8%
44.6%
23.4%
10.5%

0.4%
21.1%
48.5%
29.7%
0.3%

0.0%
71.1%
28.9%
0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
39.5%
43.9%
16.7%
0.0%

Cod

During 2001 to 2007 the total number of cod caught in the Northeast region has ranged from a
high of 2.5 million fish during 2001 to just over one million fish during 2006 (Table 135).
Although cod are caught by recreational anglers in both the EEZ and in state waters, the majority
are caught in the EEZ averaging 80% of all cod caught. In the EEZ total recreational catch peaked
during 2005 at 1.9 million fish, but declined to less than one million fish during 2006 before
rebounding to 1.2 million cod during 2007. In state waters the split between inland and other state
waters varied significantly ranging from 2% of cod from inland waters during 2003 to almost
90% during 2007.
Table 135 - Number of Cod Caught by Distance from Shore (1,000’s)
Year
<= 3 Mi
> 3 mi
Inland
Total
EEZ Proportion
2001
507.1
1612.5
361.9
2481.5
65.0%
2002
418.9
1316.4
51.6
1786.9
73.7%
2003
202.0
1674.5
4.0
1880.6
89.0%
2004
172.7
1284.4
95.8
1552.9
82.7%
2005
269.7
1853.4
54.9
2178.0
85.1%
2006
151.4
879.6
34.4
1065.4
82.6%
2007
32.7
1184.8
279.1
1496.6
79.2%

Although cod are caught in Gulf of Maine and Georges Bank stock areas, the proportion caught
in the Gulf of Maine exceeded 90% in all years except 2004 and 2005 (Table 136). Catches of
Georges Bank cod averaged about 160 thousand fish during 2001 to 2003 before increasing in
consecutive years to 511 thousand cod in 2005. However, during 2005 less than 30% of cod
caught on Georges Bank were harvested; down from an average of 58% during 2001 to 2004.
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

408

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery

During 2006 recreational catch of Georges Bank cod fell to 79 thousand fish and fell again during
2007 to less than 25 thousand fish. The number of harvested Georges Bank cod during 2007 was
less than four thousand. The low value for 2007 cannot be readily explained.
Over two million cod were caught in the Gulf of Maine by recreational anglers during 2001. The
number of Gulf of Maine cod caught has been below this level since 2001, but averaged 1.7
million fish during 2002 to 2005. During 2006 the number of Gulf of Maine cod caught was a
recent time series low of 932 thousand before increasing to 1.3 million fish during 2007; an
increase of 43%. The percentage of harvested Golf of Maine cod averaged about 38% of total
catch (recreational harvest, commercial landings and discards) from 2001 to 2004. However, the
percentage of harvested Gulf of Maine cod has been declining in consecutive years since 2004 to
23% of the catch during 2007.
Table 136 - Number of Cod by Catch Disposition and Stock Area
Gulf of Maine
Georges Bank
Catch
Harvested
Released
Catch
Harvested
Released
Year
(A+B1+B2
(A+B1)
Alive (B2)
(A+B1+B2
(A+B1)
Alive (B2)
2001
2,330.3
1,018.3
1,312.0
168.6
99.3
69.3
2002
1,640.6
551.4
1,089.2
146.5
93.1
53.4
2003
1,721.0
613.0
1,108.0
162.4
94.2
68.2
2004
1,427.6
531.9
895.7
245.2
130.1
115.1
2005
1,859.0
584.2
1,274.8
511.2
141.8
369.4
2006
932.4
249.7
682.7
79.4
39.6
39.8
2007
1,337.1
307.0
1,030.1
24.8
3.9
20.9

Compared to the Gulf of Maine, the overwhelming majority of Georges Bank cod were harvested
by party/charter anglers (Table 137). Party/charter anglers accounted for more than 90% of
harvested Georges Bank, whereas party/charter anglers averaged 25% of harvested Gulf of Maine
cod in during 2001 to 2007 except for 2006 where 55% of harvested were caught by party/charter
anglers.
Table 137 - Number of Harvested Cod by Stock and Mode
Gulf of Maine
Georges Bank
Private
Private
Boat
Boat
Year
Party/Charter
Party/Charter
2001
252.6
741.7
78.9
17.9
2002
92.7
437.2
56.1
34.5
2003
139.4
449.5
92.1
0.9
2004
129.5
404.0
93.7
8.2
2005
162.3
420.8
127.3
14.2
2006
121.3
100.2
38.8
0.0
2007
77.2
173.6
2.1
0.9

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

409

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery

The distribution of number of Georges Bank cod kept per angler trip differed during 2001 to 2003
compared to 2004 to 2006 (Figure 72). Note that due to very low numbers of Georges Bank cod
caught during 2007 it was not possible to estimate the distribution of numbers of kept cod per
angler trip. Also, for the same reason, the distribution of Georges Bank kept by private boat
anglers could not be estimated for any year. During 2001 to 2003 only about one-third of Georges
Bank cod were kept on trips where 10 or fewer cod were kept. By contrast, 73% of Georges Bank
cod were kept on trips landing 10 or fewer cod during 2004 to 2006.
Figure 72 - Cumulative Percent of Georges Bank Cod Kept by Party/Charter Anglers by Number of
Fish Kept per Angler Trip
100.0%
90.0%

Cumulative Percent

80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%

0.0%

Keep Class
2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

The reason for the change in the distribution of kept Georges Bank cod is uncertain. While the
MRIP data collection program during 2004 to 2006 was changed for the party/charter mode, the
difference between these years and prior years in the distribution of retained Georges Bank cod
was not evident for other species, and as will be seen later, was not evident for Gulf of Maine
cod.
The cumulative distribution of party/charter angler trips that kept Georges Bank cod also
exhibited differences between calendar years 2001 to 2003 and 2004 to 2006 although the
difference was not as pronounced (Figure 73). During 2001 to 2003 50% of angler trips kept six or
fewer Georges Bank cod even though these trips accounted for only about 15% of total keep.
During 2004 to 2006 there was closer correspondence between the distribution of angler trips and
kept Georges Bank cod as 54% of trips retained five or fewer fish which accounted for 30% of
kept cod.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

410

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery
Figure 73 - Cumulative Percent of Party/Charter Angler Trips that Kept Georges Bank Cod
100.0%
90.0%

Cumulative Percent

80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%

0.0%

Number of GB Cod Kept
2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

On average, 57% of total Gulf of Maine cod kept by party/charter anglers were caught on trips
where four or fewer cod were landed (Figure 74). Note that these trips accounted for 87% of total
angler trips that kept Gulf of Maine cod (Figure 75). This also means that 13% of party/charter
angler trips accounted for 43% of total kept Gulf of Maine cod in the party/charter mode. At least
since 2004 the possession limit on Gulf of Maine cod has been 10 cod per person. During 2004 to
2007 about 94% of Gulf of Maine cod were caught on trips that retained 10 or fewer fish. This
indicates that about 6% of the cod kept on party/charter angler trips may not have been in
compliance with the Federal possession limit. Note that these occasions represent a small percent
(about 1%) of total trips that retained Gulf of Maine cod and may be associated with over night
trips. If the latter, then possessing up to 20 cod would be legal since the bag limit is a daily limit.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

411

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery

Figure 74 - Cumulative Percent of Gulf of Maine Cod Kept in the Party/Charter Mode
100.0%
90.0%

Cumulative Percent

80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 24 25 29 30 32 40 60
Number of GOM Cod Kept
2001

2002

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

2003

412

2004

2005

2006

2007

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery

Figure 75 - Cumulative Percent of Party/Charter Angler Trips that Retained Gulf of Maine Cod
100.0%
90.0%

Cumulative Percent

80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 24 25 29 30 32 40 60
Number of GOM Cod Kept
2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Compared to the party/charter mode, the range of retained cod by number kept per angler trip in
the private boat mode was more compact, but there was substantially greater inter-annual
variability in the cumulative distribution of retained Gulf of Maine cod (Figure 76). For example,
during 2001 to 2007 private boat angler trips that kept five of fewer Gulf of Maine cod ranged
from 46% to 98% whereas the percentage kept by party/charter anglers ranged between 55% and
77%. Also, since 2002 the number of Gulf of Maine kept by private boat anglers has been
truncated at 11 cod in all but one year, and during 2005 to 2007 has been truncated at the 10 cod
possession limit.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

413

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery

Figure 76 - Cumulative Percent of Kept Gulf of Maine Cod Private Boat Mode by Number Kept per
Angler Trip
100.0%
90.0%

Cumulative Percent

80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
1

Number of GOM Cod Kept
2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

On average, more than half of all private boat angler trips that retained Gulf of Maine cod kept
either one or two fish per trip during 2001 to 2007 (Figure 77). The cumulative distribution of
private boat angler trips during 2006 and 2007 were more truncated than in other years as 92% of
trips kept four or fewer cod as compared to 73% in all other years. This difference may be due to
the November to March closed season implemented in 2006.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

414

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery

Figure 77 – Cumulative Percent of Private Boat Angler Trips that Retained Gulf of Maine Cod
100.0%
90.0%

Cumulative Percent

80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
1

Number of GOM Cod Kept
2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

During 2001 to 2007 the number of measured cod increased from 141 during 2001 to more than
600 cod during 2003 to 2007 (Table 138). Additionally, more than 1,000 released cod were
measured during 2005 to 2007 in the party mode. By contrast, the number of measured cod was
just over 100 in the private boat mode during 2001 to 2003 but has dwindled to only 20 cod
during 2007. For this reason the size distribution of harvested cod in the private boat mode could
not be estimated. Note also that the majority of measured cod were from the Gulf of Maine a size
distribution for Georges Bank cod could not be estimated.
Table 138 - Numbers of Measured Atlantic Cod by Year and Mode
YEAR
Party/Charter Kept
Private Boat Kept
2001
141
104
2002
343
119
2003
647
104
2004
901
81
2005
774
28
2006
817
20
2007
681
19

Party Released

1364
1608
1606

During 2001 to 2007 the Gulf of Maine cod size limit changed from 21-inches during 2001 to 23inches during 2002 to 2005, and was raised again to 24-inches as part of Framework 42 during
2006. During 2001, when the size limit for Gulf of Maine cod was 21-inches, 17% of harvested
cod was 20-inches or less (Figure 78). During the full calendar years over which the size limit
was 23-inches (2003 to 2005) the percentage of Gulf of Maine cod below the legal size averaged

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

415

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery

30% of total harvest. During 2006 and 2007 the percentage of cod harvested by Gulf of Maine
party/charter anglers that was less than 24-inches averaged 22%.
Nearly all Gulf of Maine legal-sized cod caught by party-boat anglers are kept, as less than 1% of
the released catch was above the minimum size (Figure 81). The size distribution for 2007 is
suggestive of a shift toward proportionally more released cod at higher sizes. For example, about
35% of the released Gulf of Maine cod were less than 15-inches during 2005 and 2006. This also
means that 65% of the released catch was greater than 15-inches. During 2007, more than 80% of
the released Gulf of Maine cod were more than 15-inches. Similarly, about 10% of the released
Gulf of Maine cod harvest was above 20-inches during 2005 and 2006 but was 22% of the
released catch during 2007.
Figure 78- Cumulative Distribution of Gulf of Maine Cod Party/Charter Mode Harvest by Length
100.0%
90.0%

Cumulative Percent

80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
15 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
Length (Inches)
2001

2002

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

2003

416

2004

2005

2006

2007

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery
Figure 79 - Cumulative Distribution of Gulf of Maine Cod Party Mode Released Catch by Length

100.0%
90.0%
Cumulative Percent

80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%

0.0%
Length (inches)
2005

2006

2007

The seasonal distribution of the party/charter harvest of Gulf of Maine cod differs somewhat
between party/charter anglers and private boat anglers. The party/charter season begins in April
peaks in May or June, but remains reasonably steady through the summer months before tapering
off in October and November. Party/charter harvest averaged less than 2% of total harvest in
November and less than 1% of harvest during December. Note that during November of 2006 and
March 2007, party/charter harvest of Gulf of Maine cod was zero as these months have been
closed to possession of cod since implementation of Framework 42.
The seasonal distribution of private boat mode harvest varied more than that of the party/charter
mode (Table 139). In some years harvest peaked during spring and early summer while in others,
harvest peaked during the fall. This results in somewhat of a bimodal season with highs during
the spring and fall with lulls occurring during summer and winter.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

417

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery

Table 139 - Monthly Distribution of Gulf of Maine Cod Harvest by Mode
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Private Boat Mode
Mar
0.5%
2.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
2.9%
Apr
11.4%
21.3%
19.0%
0.3%
40.7%
5.6%
May
21.7%
14.4%
34.4%
18.7%
21.0%
29.3%
Jun
12.2%
4.1%
6.2%
11.8%
8.0%
4.9%
Jul
21.1%
11.4%
15.7%
2.2%
5.7%
16.1%
Aug
4.5%
10.1%
5.6%
2.4%
12.9%
14.6%
Sep
5.8%
4.8%
14.8%
37.0%
3.5%
0.8%
Oct
9.7%
8.6%
0.4%
4.7%
0.5%
25.8%
Nov
11.4%
19.9%
2.7%
17.4%
7.9%
0.0%
Dec
1.8%
3.4%
1.1%
5.6%
0.0%
0.0%
Party/Charter Mode
Mar
0.0%
6.1%
0.0%
0.8%
1.9%
12.4%
Apr
0.8%
7.5%
4.6%
8.4%
28.4%
26.1%
May
19.6%
16.5%
37.1%
25.5%
17.6%
9.2%
Jun
4.7%
17.7%
11.6%
14.1%
16.3%
27.7%
Jul
34.8%
7.7%
8.4%
7.7%
11.2%
9.0%
Aug
6.1%
11.3%
6.8%
17.3%
11.6%
7.9%
Sep
16.3%
18.7%
17.8%
14.9%
5.2%
6.0%
Oct
16.4%
11.5%
9.5%
5.8%
5.8%
1.7%
Nov
1.4%
1.4%
4.4%
4.5%
1.7%
0.0%
Dec
0.0%
1.7%
0.0%
0.9%
0.3%
0.0%

6.2.5.5

2007
0.0%
23.4%
12.0%
3.4%
6.2%
10.8%
28.7%
2.1%
13.5%
0.0%
0.0%
15.4%
29.0%
14.1%
17.5%
6.4%
15.3%
2.4%
0.0%
0.0%

Party/Charter Permits

Federal party/charter permits are currently issued by the NERO under the Summer
Flounder/Scup/Black Sea Bass, Squid/Mackerel/Butterfish, Multispecies, and Bluefish, FMPs.
Federal party/charter permits for American lobster fishery are also issued under the provisions of
ACFCMA. Each of these permits is open access and with the exception of multispecies any
vessel operator must possess a federal permit when fishing in the EEZ while carrying passengers
for hire. The multispecies plan is unique in that the FMP prohibits any limited access permit
holder from also possessing any open access permit but allows limited access permit holders to
carry passengers for hire. The number of multispecies party/charter permits issued has been
increasing since 2001 from 652 permits to 762 permits in 2007 (Table 140). Almost all
multispecies party/charter permit holders held at least one other party/charter permit with bluefish
and fluke being the most commonly held permit. Only a small number of multispecies permit
holders held a party/charter lobster permit during FY 2001-2007.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

418

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery
Table 140 - Summary of Northeast region party/charter permits held by Multispecies Part/Charter
Permit Holders FY 2001-2007.
Permit Type
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Multispecies
652
687
687
692
741
738
762
Bluefish
553
590
609
626
674
674
699
Fluke
508
537
548
537
618
631
672
Lobster
12
16
17
23
22
22
23
Scup
438
469
470
491
560
568
610
Black Sea Bass
469
507
518
534
597
608
645
Squid/Mackerel/Butterfish
466
491
506
525
579
588
627

Although the number of unique party/charter permit combinations that would be possible to
obtain is much larger, there were only 34 unique permit combinations issued to multispecies
party/charter permit holders during FY 2001 – 2007. Of these combinations nine accounted for
more than 80% of multispecies permit holders. More than half of all multispecies party/charter
permit holders also held every other federal party/charter permit except lobster (Table 141). Most
of the other common permit combinations at least included bluefish and summer flounder. Less
than 50 multispecies party/charter permit holders only held a multispecies permit.
Table 141 - Summary of Unique party/charter permit combinations held by multispecies
party/charter permit holders FY 2001-2007
Permit Combinations
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Mult/Bluefish/Fluke/Scup/BSB/SMB
304
340
362
379
449
469
Mult/Bluefish/Fluke/Scup/BSB
40
46
40
48
48
46
Multispecies-only
39
44
47
32
34
30
Mults/Bluefish
39
44
47
32
34
30
Mult/Bluefish/Fluke/BSB/SMB
23
27
32
28
20
25
Mult/Bluefish/SMB
24
29
28
36
28
23
Mult/Bluefish/Fluke/SMB
19
20
19
16
14
15
Mults/Bluefish/Fluke/Scup
24
18
18
16
15
14
Mult/Fluke/Scup/BSB/SMB
25
22
15
8
13
12
Percent of Total Permits
83%
86%
87%
87%
88%
91%

2007
511
42
25
25
22
19
17
14
13
91%

Party/Charter Activity
The number of vessels reporting retaining any groundfish through the VTR ranged from 251 to
299 during FY 2001-2007 (Table 142). These vessels include individuals that hold an open access
multispecies party/charter permit as well as limited access vessels that carry passengers for hire.
The number of participating vessels declined in consecutive years from 283 operators during FY
2003 to 259 operators during FY2006 before increasing to 269 vessels during FY 2007. The
number of trips retaining groundfish and number of passengers carried on those trips were highest
during FY 2001. However, even as the number of trips and passengers fluctuated over time the
number of trips taken per vessel was nearly constant at about 20 trips. Likewise the number of
passengers per trip did not vary very much.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

419

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery
Table 142 - Summary of Party/Charter Operations
Fishing
Year
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007

Number of
Reporting
Vessels
299
251
283
277
265
259
269

Number of
Groundfish
Trips
5,898
5,106
5,475
5,710
5,768
5,133
5,622

Number
of
Anglers
136,748
108,034
119,520
119,612
115,737
102,759
109,734

Anglers
per Trip
23.2
21.2
21.8
20.9
20.1
20.0
19.5

Trips per
Vessel
19.7
20.3
19.3
20.6
21.8
19.8
20.9

The number of party/charter operators taking passengers for hire on groundfish trips dropped by
48 permits from FY 2001 to FY 2002, but increased by 38 permit holders from FY 2002 to FY
2003. During FY 2004 – FY 2007 the annual change in number of operating units ranged
between +10 to -6. Embedded in these changes is a mixture of vessels that have operated
continuously for multiple years and others that have operated on an intermittent basis.
To get a better understanding of entry and exit patterns in the groundfish party/charter fishery two
types of continuous operators were tracked from FY 2001 to FY 2007. Entering vessels were
defined as being vessels that operated continuously from 2002 to 2007, from 2003 to 2007, 2004
to 2007 and so on. Exiting vessels were defined as vessels that operated from 2001 to 2002, from
2001 to 2003, from 2001 to 2004 and so on. An exiting vessel only means that it did not report
taking passengers for hire where groundfish were retained. This does not necessarily mean that
the vessel ceased altogether from carrying passengers for hire. For entering vessels the first
fishing year denotes the fishing year in which they entered the party/charter groundfish fishery
whereas the last fishing year for exiting vessels denotes the final year in which these vessels
reported taking groundfish passengers. Note that any vessel that operated continuously from 2001
to 2007 was defined as neither an exiting nor an entering vessel. However, for purposes of
reporting these vessels were included in both tallies.
A total of 87 party/charter vessels carried passengers for hire where groundfish were retained in
every fishing year from FY 2001 – FY 2007 (Table 143). During 2002-2007 there were 100
party/charter operators that took trips where groundfish were landed. Note that these 100 vessels
include the 87 that had also operated during FY 2001. During FY 2003-2007 there were 120
vessels carried passengers on one or more trips in every year where groundfish were landed. As
was previously the case for the 120 vessels includes the 100 vessels operating during 2002 – 2007
as well as the 87 vessels that operated in every year during 2001 – 2007, and so on. There were
22 vessels that operated during 2001 – 2002 but did not report taking groundfish passengers for
hire in any other fishing year. Similarly, there were 18 groundfish party/charter vessels that
operated in every year during FY 2001 – FY 2003 but reported no groundfish trips in any other
fishing year.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

420

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery
Table 143 - Summary of Groundfish Party/Charter Operators by Years of Continuous Operation
Years of
Operation
Enter Year – FY
2007
2001-2007
2002-2007
2003-2007
2004-2007
2005-2007
2006-2007

Number of
Operating Vessels

Years of
Operation
FY 2001 – Last
Year

Number of
Operating Vessels

2001-2002
2001-2003
2001-2004
2001-2005
2001-2006
2001-2007

87
100
120
135
157
192

22
18
13
8
10
87

The net change in party/charter operators as either entering or exiting following more multiple
years of continuous operation is reported in Table 144. Fishing year denotes the year in which
new entrants first operated and the year in which exiting party/charter groundfish vessels stopped
taking groundfish passengers for hire. The net change represented the difference between entering
and exiting vessels. For example, 20 party/charter vessels started operating in FY 2003 that had
not carried groundfish passengers in any prior year include in the analysis, while 22 operators that
had carried passengers during FY 2001-FY 2002 left the fishery leaving a net reduction of 2
party/charter operators during FY 2003. The net change in entry and exit was also negative during
FY 2004 but was positive in both FY 2005 and FY2006. During FY 2007 10 party/charter
operators left the groundfish fishery, however, the net change will not be known until FY2008
since some operators may have begun carrying groundfish passengers for hire during FY 2007.
Table 144 - Summary of Entry and Exit of Groundfish Party/Charter Operators
Fishing Year
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007

Entering Operators
13
20
15
22
35

Exiting Operators
22
18
13
8
10

Net Change
13
-2
-3
9
27

The increase in new entrants to the party/charter fleet engaged in the groundfish fishery has
resulted in greater competition for passengers. During FY 2001 the 87 vessels that operated in
every year took two-thirds of the trips where groundfish were landed and carried 77% of all
passengers (Table 145). These vessels maintained their share of both trips and passengers during
FY 2002 – FY 2003. Since FY 2003 the share of trips and passengers has declined to 59% and
63% respectively.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

421

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery
Table 145 - Passenger and Trip Shares for the 87 Vessels Active in Every Year
Fishing
Year
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007

Number of
Groundfish
Trips
3907
3442
3715
3622
3714
3176
3339

Number of
Anglers
104944
83854
92228
83603
78997
67946
69610

Share of
Groundfish
Trips
66%
67%
68%
63%
64%
62%
59%

Share of
Passengers
77%
78%
77%
70%
68%
66%
63%

Because of safety regulations the party/charter sector is segmented into operations that may only
carry six or fewer passengers on a trip and operations that may carry more than six passengers.
Thus there are operators that exclusively carry fewer than six passengers, operators that
exclusively carry more than six passengers, and operators that sometimes carry six or fewer
passengers and sometimes carry more than six. During FY 2001-FY 2007 there were between
163 and 195 party/charter operators that exclusively carried six or fewer passengers on all trips
where groundfish were kept (Table 146). These operating units accounted for more than 60% of
all operating units reporting groundfish trips (Table 147). These so-called “six-pack” vessels took
about 2,000 trips during FY 2007 and carried more than 11,000 passengers. These trips
represented just over one-third of total groundfish trips and 10% of total passengers. Thus while
six-pack vessels represented the majority of party/charter operations they carried a small
proportion of total party/charter passengers.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

422

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery

Table 146 - Summary of Operating Units, Trips and Passengers by type of Operation
Only Six Passengers or Fewer

Fishing
Year
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007

Number of
Operating
Units
195
163
177
172
173
166
169

Number of
Groundfish
Trips
1,941
1,802
1,539
1,807
1,930
1,947
2,079

Number
of
Anglers
10,156
9,570
7,990
9,600
10,449
10,500
11,162

Only More than Six Passengers
Number
of
Number of
Number
Operating Groundfish
of
Units
Trips
Anglers
76
1,968
73,574
67
2,537
85,942
70
1,845
64,766
66
1,828
64,990
53
1,670
60,038
71
2,171
75,415
78
2,368
79,020

Both Six and More than Six
Passengers
Number
of
Number of
Number
Operating Groundfish
of
Units
Trips
Anglers
28
1,989
53,018
21
767
12,522
36
2,091
46,764
39
2,075
45,022
39
2,168
45,250
22
1,015
16,844
22
1,175
19,552

Table 147 - Summary of Shares of Operating Units, Groundfish Trips, and Passengers by Type of Operation
Only Six Passengers or Fewer

Fishing
Year
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007

Number of
Operating
Units
65%
65%
63%
62%
65%
64%
63%

Number of
Groundfish
Trips
33%
35%
28%
32%
33%
38%
37%

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

Number
of
Anglers
7%
9%
7%
8%
9%
10%
10%

Only More than Six Passengers
Number of
Operating
Units
25%
27%
25%
24%
20%
27%
29%

423

Number of
Groundfish
Trips
33%
50%
34%
32%
29%
42%
42%

Number
of
Anglers
54%
80%
54%
54%
52%
73%
72%

Both Six and More than Six
Passengers
Number
of
Number of
Number
Operating Groundfish
of
Units
Trips
Anglers
9%
34%
39%
8%
15%
12%
13%
38%
39%
14%
36%
38%
15%
38%
39%
8%
20%
16%
8%
21%
18%

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery

Party/charter operators that exclusively carried more than six passengers represented
approximately one-quarter of the party/charter fleet engaged in the recreational groundfish fishery
during FY 2001-FY 2007. In most years the share of groundfish trips taken by these vessels was
similar to that of the number of the six-pack fleet but has increased during FY2006-FY 2007 to
42% of total trips. The share of passengers carried by party/charter vessels that only carry more
than six passengers was as high as 80% during FY 2002, was just over 50% during FY 2001 and
FY 2003-FY 2005, but more recently has increased to more than 70% during FY2006-FY 2007.
Party/charter vessels that offer both trips taking fewer than six passengers and trips taking more
than six passengers represented the smallest number of operators ranging from 39 to 21 during
FY 2001 – FY 2007. While these vessels do offer both types of trips one more than 80% of the
occasions where groundfish were retained there were more than more than six passengers on
board. These vessels represented 13-15% of total operating units during FY 2003-FY 2005, but
have declined to 8% of operating units during FY2006-FY 2007. Similarly, the share of
groundfish trips and passengers has also declined to about 20% and 17% during FY2006-FY
2007.
Party/charter operators offer trips of different duration. For purposes of analysis these trips were
delineated between trips departing and returning on the same calendar day and trips that sailed
and returned on different calendar days. The former were subdivided into half-day (6 hours or
less), full-day (more than 6 and less than or equal to 12 hours), and extended (more than 12
hours), while the latter only included overnight trips regardless of actual trip duration. For both
six-pack and trips carrying more than six passengers the number of full-day trips (6-12 hours)
represented the majority of trips, at least 83% for the former and 73% for the latter (Table 148).
Since 2003 there appears to have been a modest shift in emphasis away from half-day trips (6
hours or less) to a larger proportion of trips greater than 12 hours. However, there does not appear
to be any notable change in the proportion of trips spanning more than one calendar day. Note
that the proportion of passengers carried by trip duration was quite similar to trip proportions
(Table 149).

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

424

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery

Table 148 - Summary of Number of Trips by Trip Duration and Number of Passengers per Trip
More than Six Passengers
Six or Fewer Passengers
Fishing
Half-Day
Full-Day
Extended Overnight
Half-Day
Full-Day Extended Overnight
Year
2001
714
3075
166
53
141
1892
68
17
2002
564
2593
156
63
152
1722
58
9
2003
743
2739
217
77
145
1753
141
4
2004
576
2957
281
72
139
1924
262
6
2005
358
3007
361
65
52
2240
279
7
2006
343
2642
289
49
93
1965
248
6
2007
595
2707
362
48
105
2101
205
11
Shares
2001
17.8%
76.7%
4.1%
1.3%
6.7%
89.3%
3.2%
0.8%
2002
16.7%
76.8%
4.6%
1.9%
7.8%
88.7%
3.0%
0.5%
2003
19.7%
72.5%
5.7%
2.0%
7.1%
85.8%
6.9%
0.2%
2004
14.8%
76.1%
7.2%
1.9%
6.0%
82.5%
11.2%
0.3%
2005
9.4%
79.3%
9.5%
1.7%
2.0%
86.9%
10.8%
0.3%
2006
10.3%
79.5%
8.7%
1.5%
4.0%
85.0%
10.7%
0.3%
2007
16.0%
72.9%
9.8%
1.3%
4.3%
86.7%
8.5%
0.5%

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

425

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery

Table 149 - Summary of Number of Passengers by Trip Duration and Number of Passengers per Trip
More than Six Passengers
Six or Fewer Passengers
Fishing
HalfFullHalfFullExtended Overnight
Extended Overnight
Year
Day
Day
Day
Day
2001
25145
99161
5005
1539
617
10032
323
64
2002
17494
78223
4090
2235
694
9237
294
50
2003
22761
83586
6745
2900
608
9372
747
19
2004
16375
89008
8193
2529
612
10339
1382
23
2005
9941
90365
11079
2172
248
12096
1491
31
2006
10493
78804
8375
1708
428
10683
1363
25
2007
17953
77650
10392
1450
470
11358
1113
59
Shares
2001
19.2%
75.8%
3.8%
1.2%
5.6%
90.9%
2.9%
0.6%
2002
17.1%
76.7%
4.0%
2.2%
6.8%
89.9%
2.9%
0.5%
2003
19.6%
72.1%
5.8%
2.5%
5.7%
87.2%
7.0%
0.2%
2004
14.1%
76.7%
7.1%
2.2%
5.0%
83.7%
11.2%
0.2%
2005
8.8%
79.6%
9.8%
1.9%
1.8%
87.2%
10.8%
0.2%
2006
10.6%
79.3%
8.4%
1.7%
3.4%
85.5%
10.9%
0.2%
2007
16.7%
72.3%
9.7%
1.3%
3.6%
87.4%
8.6%
0.5%

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

426

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery

Party/charter vessels may offer a mix of recreational trips that target groundfish and trips that do
not. Since party/charter revenues are directly linked to passengers, dependence on groundfish was
based on the proportion of passengers carried when groundfish were retained to total passengers
carried. Of the party/charter operators that took at least one groundfish trip, the distribution of
dependence exhibits a bimodal pattern where approximately three quarters of all vessels either
relied on groundfish for more than 90% of passengers or relied on groundfish for 20% or less
(Table 150). That is, about 35% of party/charter vessels taking at least one groundfish trip relied
on groundfish for over 90% of total passengers. Approximately 40% of party/charter operators
relied on groundfish for 20% of less of total passenger load.
Table 150 - Dependence on Groundfish Trips
2001
2002
<= 10%
102
81
> 10% <= 20%
22
25
> 20% <= 30%
11
8
> 30% <= 40%
13
6
> 40% <= 50%
10
8
> 50% <= 60%
10
6
> 60% <= 70%
10
9
> 70% <= 80%
10
6
> 80% <= 90%
7
11
> 90%
104
91
<= 10%
> 10% <= 20%
> 20% <= 30%
> 30% <= 40%
> 40% <= 50%
> 50% <= 60%
> 60% <= 70%
> 70% <= 80%
> 80% <= 90%
> 90%

34.1%
7.4%
3.7%
4.3%
3.3%
3.3%
3.3%
3.3%
2.3%
34.8%

32.3%
10.0%
3.2%
2.4%
3.2%
2.4%
3.6%
2.4%
4.4%
36.3%

2003
95
22
14
9
6
6
8
6
8
109

2004
90
24
10
12
9
8
13
8
11
92

2005
70
24
9
13
11
13
11
11
7
96

2006
75
22
5
11
11
14
11
2
9
99

2007
76
31
13
14
9
11
6
6
8
95

33.6%
7.8%
4.9%
3.2%
2.1%
2.1%
2.8%
2.1%
2.8%
38.5%

32.5%
8.7%
3.6%
4.3%
3.2%
2.9%
4.7%
2.9%
4.0%
33.2%

26.4%
9.1%
3.4%
4.9%
4.2%
4.9%
4.2%
4.2%
2.6%
36.2%

29.0%
8.5%
1.9%
4.2%
4.2%
5.4%
4.2%
0.8%
3.5%
38.2%

28.3%
11.5%
4.8%
5.2%
3.3%
4.1%
2.2%
2.2%
3.0%
35.3%

The bimodal distribution of groundfish dependence is at least in part explained by area fished. On
average, 82% of party/charter vessels took passengers for hire exclusively in the Gulf of Maine
(48%) or in the Southern New England/Mid-Atlantic (34%) (Table 151). Of the vessels fishing
exclusively in the Gulf of Maine more than 60% relied on groundfish for more than 90% of
passengers (Table 152). By contrast, 87% of party/charter vessels fishing exclusively in the
SNEMA area relied on groundfish for 20% or less of total passengers carried during the fishing
year.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

427

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery

Table 151 - Stock Area Combinations Fished by Party/Charter Vessels by Fishing Year
Fishing
Year
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007

GOM
Only
131
123
132
126
137
134
133

GB Only
10
4
1
4
2
2
0

SNEMA
Only
121
85
104
87
81
76
103

GOM &
GB
10
12
13
15
13
11
4

GB &
SNEMA
8
11
12
11
7
8
6

GOM &
SNEMA
11
12
16
27
16
20
16

All
Areas
8
4
5
7
9
8
7

Table 152 - Dependence on Groundfish for Vessels Fishing Exclusively in GOM or SNEMA
GOM Only
SNEMA Only
GF
GF
GF Depend
GF
GF
Depend >
GF
Fishing Depend <=
> 20% <
Depend
Depend
20% <
Depend
Year
90%
20%
90%
>= 90%
<= 20%
>= 90%
2001
4.6%
29.8%
65.6%
85%
14.0%
0.8%
2002
8.1%
29.3%
62.6%
91%
9.4%
0.0%
2003
5.3%
25.8%
68.9%
88%
6.7%
4.8%
2004
9.5%
30.2%
60.3%
92%
6.9%
1.1%
2005
6.6%
33.6%
59.9%
84%
13.6%
2.5%
2006
9.0%
30.6%
60.4%
86%
10.5%
3.9%
2007
8.3%
28.6%
63.2%
83%
12.6%
4.9%
Average
7%
30%
63%
87%
11%
3%

The majority (approximately 85%) of party/charter groundfish trips took place in the Gulf of
Maine (Table 153). These trips also accounted for about 86% of passengers on board
party/charter trips that landed groundfish. The number of trips and passengers on groundfish trips
in the Gulf of Maine fell during FY2006 compared to FY 2003-FY 2005. This reduction may
have been associated with Framework 42 measures that implemented a closed season and raised
the cod size limit. During FY2006 the number of Gulf of Maine groundfish trips was down 5.4%
compared to the FY 2003-FY 2005 average and the number of passengers was down 10.2%. Both
trips and number of passengers rose in FY 2007 compared to FY2006 and while the number of
Gulf of Maine groundfish trips was 1.1% higher compared to the FY 2003-FY 2005 average, the
number of passengers was still down by 7.8%.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

428

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery
Table 153 - Summary of Party/Charter Vessels Groundfish Trips and Passengers by Fishing Year
and Stock Area
Fishing
Year

Number of
Reporting
Vessels

2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007

153
146
164
165
171
168
157

2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007

32
30
23
26
25
21
14

2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007

134
97
112
117
98
98
120

Number of
Number
Groundfish
of
Anglers
Trips
Anglers
per Trip
Gulf of Maine
4,786
11,4081
23.8
4,456
9,6261
21.6
4,534
10,1104
22.3
4,823
10,3361
21.4
4,861
9,673
19.9
4,484
9,020
20.1
4,792
9,256
19.3
Georges Bank
103
1,273
12.4
82
1,022
12.5
104
1,811
17.4
108
1,955
18.1
110
1,805
16.4
113
2,415
21.4
37
808
21.8
Southern New England/Mid-Atlantic
1,009
21,394
21.2
568
10,751
18.9
837
16,605
19.8
779
14,296
18.4
807
17,202
21.3
536
10,142
18.9
793
16,267
20.5

Trips per
Vessel
31.3
30.5
27.6
29.2
28.4
26.7
30.5
3.2
2.7
4.5
4.2
4.4
5.4
2.6
7.5
5.9
7.5
6.7
8.2
5.5
6.6

The number of party/charter groundfish trips to Georges Bank represented no more than 2.2% of
trips and 2.4% of passengers in any fishing year from FY 2001- FY 2007. The number of
passengers per trip was highest during FY2006-FY 2007 which may be the result of some
switching between Gulf of Maine and Georges Bank, but given the low number of trips and
passengers this is unlikely to account for the changes in Gulf of Maine trips.
Party/charter groundfish trips taken in the SNE/MA stock area averaged 14% and 13% of total
groundfish trips and passengers respectively. Both the number of trips and passengers was highest
during FY 2001 at 1,009 and 21,394 respectively. In most years trips were around 800 and the
number of passengers ranged between 16,000 – 17,000 anglers. However, during FY 2002 and
FY2006 trips were down to between 500 and 600 and passengers were between 10,000 and
11,000 anglers. The reason for theses low trip and passenger numbers are uncertain.

6.2.6 Wholesale Trade and Processing Component
6.2.6.1

Seafood Dealers

All Federally permitted groundfish vessels are required to sell to a federally permitted dealer.
Further, federally permitted dealers are required to report all purchases of seafood regardless of
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

429

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery

whether the vessels held a Federal or state-waters only permit. Note that since Federal dealer
permits are issued on a calendar year basis all reported data contained in this section are on a
calendar year basis. Additionally, all reported data refer purchased of seafood from commercial
fishing vessels. Dealers may obtain product from many other sources so the activity levels
included herein are likely to capture only a portion of business activity by seafood wholesalers.
Given dealer reporting requirements, dealer records account for 99% of reported sales of
groundfish in the Northeast region. Issued on a calendar year basis, the number of groundfish
permitted dealers has declined by about 10% averaging 366 permits during 2005 to 2007
compared to an average of 408 permits issued during 2001 to 2004 (Table 154).
Based on the mailing address state for each dealer permit, the majority of groundfish permits
were issued to dealers located in Massachusetts, followed by New York, .New Jersey, Rhode
Island, and Maine. Note that the number of permits reported in Table 1 includes dealer permits
issued to seafood auctions (Portland Fish Exchange, Whaling City Display Auction, Gloucester
Fish Exchange, and New England Fish Exchange). These auctions function as clearinghouses
where member dealers purchase seafood, but do not necessarily possess a Federal dealer permit
since the auction itself is the dealer of record. This means that the total number of entities
involved in seafood wholesale trade is likely to be larger than what official dealer records may
suggest.
Table 154 – Number of federally permitted groundfish dealers (calendar year)

State
CT
DE
MA
MD
ME
NC
NH
NJ
NY
RI
VA
Other
Total

2001
6
2
134
4
56
24
9
42
77
39
17
10
420

2002
7
2
131
3
56
22
9
41
75
38
20
7
411

2003

2004

6
2
125
6
54
23
8
36
77
43
23
8
411

6
1
117
5
51
24
8
31
77
41
23
6
390

2005
4
2
111
4
35
21
7
35
74
39
23
5
360

2006
4
2
118
7
30
22
8
43
68
40
22
3
367

2007
5
2
112
8
33
22
7
52
73
38
18
2
372

Overall, only about 40% of dealers issued a Federal groundfish permit actually report any
purchases of groundfish (Table 155). The total number of reporting dealers with purchases of
groundfish has been declining over time from 170 during 2001 to 133 in 2007.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

430

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery

Table 155 – Number of federally permitted groundfish dealers reporting buying groundfish

State
CT
DE
MA
MD
ME
NC
NH
NJ
NY
RI
VA
Other
Total

2001

2002

2
0
68
1
10
2
2
10
37
33
5
0
170

2003

0
0
64
1
9
7
3
10
36
21
3
0
154

2004

2
0
63
1
8
5
2
8
46
26
4
0
165

2005

1
0
55
1
7
7
1
9
43
21
8
0
153

0
1
54
2
8
8
2
8
39
21
4
0
147

2006

2007

1
1
53
2
6
6
1
9
38
20
0
0
137

1
1
48
1
9
7
2
9
34
19
2
0
133

Including auction markets, seafood dealers in Massachusetts alone accounted for more than 70%
of the value of groundfish purchased and the combined purchases by Maine and Massachusetts
dealers accounted for over 90% of total groundfish purchased (Table 156). A substantial
proportion of groundfish have been purchased through the four auctions located in New England
averaging 54% of total groundfish purchased. However, the share of groundfish purchased
through auctions has declined in both 2006 and 2007 to 50% and 46% of total purchases
respectively.
Table 156 – Share of groundfish purchased by federally permitted dealers including auctions

State
CT
DE
MA
MD
ME
NC
NH
NJ
NY
RI
VA
Auctions
MA
ME

2001
0%
71%
0%
20%
0%
4%
1%
2%
3%
0%
57%
38%
20%

2002
73%
0%
18%
0%
4%
0%
1%
4%
0%
57%
39%
18%

2003
0%

2004
0%

74%
0%
17%
0%
3%
1%
1%
3%
0%
57%
40%
17%

76%
0%
18%
0%
2%
1%
1%
3%
0%
56%
39%
17%

2005
0%
76%
0%
18%
0%
2%
1%
1%
3%
0%
55%
38%
17%

2006
0%
0%
75%
0%
16%
0%
2%
1%
1%
5%
50%
35%
15%

2007
0%
0%
77%
0%
13%
0%
3%
1%
1%
5%
0%
46%
34%
11%

Three of the four auction markets are located in Massachusetts while the Portland Fish Exchange
in located in Maine. The Portland Fish Exchange accounts for nearly all of the groundfish
purchased in Maine while the auction markets in Massachusetts account for less than 40% of
reported purchases. Omitting auctions, Massachusetts based dealers accounted for nearly 80% of
the value of groundfish purchased during 2001 to 2007. Permitted dealers from New Hampshire
and Rhode Island averaged 6% and 8% of dealer purchases of groundfish respectively.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

431

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery

Table 157 – Share of groundfish purchased by federally permitted dealers excluding auctions

State
CT
DE
MA
MD
ME
NC
NH
NJ
NY
RI
VA

2001
0%

2002

78%
0%
0%
0%
8%
2%
4%
8%
0%

80%
0%
0%
0%
9%
1%
2%
9%
0%

2003
0%

2004
0%

80%
0%
0%
0%
7%
2%
2%
8%
0%

84%
0%
1%
0%
5%
2%
2%
7%
0%

2005
0%
85%
0%
2%
0%
5%
1%
1%
6%
0%

2006
0%
0%
79%
0%
2%
0%
5%
2%
2%
10%

2007
0%
0%
78%
0%
3%
0%
5%
2%
2%
10%
0%

In most states the number of dealers reporting purchases of groundfish is too small to report
detailed statistics due to confidentiality concerns. The states with sufficient numbers of
participating dealers include Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, and Rhode Island.
Compared to all purchases of seafood from commercial fishing vessels the median proportion of
groundfish has declined from more than 19% during 2001 and 2002 to less than 4% during 2005
to 2007 (Table 158). Similarly, the share of groundfish value at the 80th percentile also declined
for Massachusetts dealers from an average of 78% during 2001 to 2004 to 55% during 2005 to
2007. The decline in relative share of groundfish of total seafood purchased from fishing vessels
was partially due to a decline in the total value of groundfish available to seafood dealers (13%
comparing the 2001-2004 to 2005-2007 average), but was also do to an 80% increase in the value
of seafood purchases comprised of species other than groundfish. Thus, reductions in groundfish
supplies were more than offset by purchases of other seafood products.

Table 158 – Relative dependence on groundfish

2001

2002

20th Percentile
Median
80th Percentile

0.2%
19.2%
79.1%

0.2%
19.3%
77.6%

20th Percentile
Median
80th Percentile

0.0%
0.0%
3.3%

0.0%
0.0%
2.6%

20th Percentile
Median
80th Percentile

1.7%
10.0%
48.2%

0.7%
2.7%
27.0%

20th Percentile
Median
80th Percentile

0.2%
0.9%
15.9%

0.1%
5.4%
19.1%

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

2003
2004
2005
Massachusetts Dealers
0.7%
0.3%
0.0%
16.3%
11.4%
4.0%
82.0%
73.0%
50.0%
New Jersey Dealers
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.3%
0.0%
0.7%
7.9%
8.3%
4.7%
New York Dealers
0.5%
0.4%
0.2%
4.4%
1.9%
1.5%
21.5%
9.9%
6.6%
Rhode Island Dealers
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
1.2%
4.0%
0.3%
8.7%
13.0%
8.4%

432

2006

2007

0.2%
2.4%
51.6%

0.2%
3.2%
64.4%

0.0%
0.8%
8.5%

0.0%
0.3%
9.3%

0.2%
3.5%
15.1%

0.5%
3.1%
10.9%

0.1%
5.6%
13.3%

0.0%
5.2%
17.3%

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery

6.2.6.2

Seafood Processing

Available data make it difficult to characterize the seafood processing industry particularly as it
relates to the groundfish fishery. Studies of the processing industry suggest that it is relatively less
susceptible to fluctuations in the availability of domestic sources of wild-caught fish as
processors are able to find alternative sources of supply or use substitute species to maintain
product lines (Jin, Hoagland, and Thunberg, 2005; Dirham and Georgianna, 1994). Note that this
does not necessarily mean that all segments of the processing industry are readily able to find
alternatives as some processors may be more reliant on local sources of seafood to meet customer
demand.
The processing sector was characterized by using County Business Patterns (CBP) data. County
Business Patterns is an annual survey of establishments to ascertain numbers of employees and
wages paid. Although the survey is conducted annually, the data are not released until about two
calendar years afterward. This means that the most recent data include calendar year 2006.The
survey is conducted by the U.S. Bureau of the Census where the unit of observation is an
establishment, which is defined as being a single physical location or place of business. In cases
where multiple activities are carried out under the same ownership, all activities are classified
under a single establishment. The industrial classification for that multi-activity establishment is
based on its major activity. This means that the reported number of establishments may
underestimate the total number of establishments that may be engaged in a particular kind of
activity. For example, seafood businesses may process fish or shellfish and may also act as
wholesale distributors or buyers/sellers of unprocessed seafood. Any such establishment would be
assigned to a single industrial classification (either processing or wholesale trade) depending on
which activity was the larger source of revenue. For this reason, the CBP data will underestimate
the total number of establishments that may be engaged in some level of processing activity.
Nevertheless, the survey should reflect establishments that specialize in seafood processing.
Region-wide, the number of processing establishments has been declining in consecutive years
from 224 during 2003 to 197 in 2006. Since availability of groundfish is most likely to affect
states in New England the focus will be on these states. The number of processing establishments
has not changed in Rhode Island (Table 159) since 2003 and in Connecticut has increased from 2
to 4 processors between 2003 and 2006. In New Hampshire the number of processing
establishments was constant at 10 during 2004 to 2006. By contrast, the number of processing
establishments has declined in both Maine and Massachusetts. The number of processing
establishments in Massachusetts was 47 during 2006; down from a high of 55 processors in 2003.
In Maine the number of processors did not change from 2005 to 2006, but was down from 35
establishments in 2003.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

433

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery
Table 159 – Number of seafood processing establishments

Year
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006

CT
2
2
2
3
3
4

DE
1
1
1
1
1
1

MA
41
45
55
53
50
47

MD
26
24
23
23
23
19

ME
36
33
35
28
27
27

NC
27
21
18
18
17
18

NH
8
9
11
10
10
10

NJ
18
17
16
15
17
16

NY
21
16
18
17
18
15

RI
6
9
7
7
7
7

VA
42
39
38
42
39
33

NER
Total
228
216
224
217
212
197

Although the number of processors declined in Maine employment has not declined at the same
rate (Table 160). That is, employment per establishment was 18.7 in 2003 but had risen to 22.8 in
2006. This suggests that at least some of the processing employment associated with a decline in
establishments has been absorbed by the establishments that remain. This was also the case for
Massachusetts as employment per establishment increased to 55.5 in 2006 compared to 49.4 in
2003. By contrast, processing employment declined in both New Hampshire and Rhode Island
during 2004 to 2006 even as the number of establishments remained the same. Connecticut was
the only New England state where processing employment increased in 2006 compared to prior
years. However, the number of employees per establishment declined from 37.7 during 2005 to
29.8 during 2006.
Table 160 – Seafood processing mid-March employment (2001-2006)

Year
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006

CT
103
109
112
108
113
119

DE
357
333
172
312
312
191

MA
2164
2231
2717
2743
2671
2607

MD
889
807
762
895
1141
1053

ME
1007
639
656
576
614
616

NC
381
280
427
610
439
475

NH
296
368
322
448
418
369

NJ
1100
928
846
749
969
667

NY
370
352
271
323
324
298

RI
240
184
355
355
270
231

NER
VA Total
1259 8165
1035 7267
1256 7896
1231 8350
1336 8607
871 7496

6.2.7 Bycatch
The M-S Act defines bycatch as fish which are harvested in a fishery, but which are not sold or
kept for personal use, including economic discards and regulatory discards. Fish released alive
under a recreational catch and release fishery management program are not included. Further, the
M-S Act requires that, to the extent practicable, bycatch should be minimized and the mortality of
bycatch that cannot be avoided should be minimized. In order to consider whether these
objectives are being met, bycatch must be reported and assessed. To this end, the M-S Act
requires that a standardized reporting methodology assess the amount and type of bycatch
occurring in a fishery. The primary tools used to report bycatch in the multispecies fishery are the
Vessel Trip Report system (VTR) and the seas sampling/observer program. Each permitted vessel
is required to report discards and landings in VTRs submitted on a periodic basis. The sea
sampling/observer program places personnel on boats to observe and estimate the amount of
discards on a haul-by-haul basis. A federal judge ruled that the NMFS acted arbitrarily,

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

434

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery

capriciously, and contrary to law when it did not adopt new measures to report and assess bycatch
after passage of the Sustainable Fisheries Act (Conservation Law Foundation et al. v.
Donald Evans). This court ruling was addressed by the implementation of the Standardized
Bycatch Reporting Amendment (SBRM) in 2007.
The SBRM, however, does not address bycatch on a fishery or stock basis. For this reason, the
discard estimates of all groundfish stocks are summarized here to facilitate monitoring whether
the management plan minimizes discards to the extent practicable.
The amount of bycatch in Northeast Region fisheries is routinely estimated on a stock-by stock
and calendar year basis in the assessments conducted as part of the stock assessment workshops
(SAW) reviewed by the stock assessment review committee (SARC). Bycatch was also estimated
in the Groundfish Assessment Review Meeting process (GARM III). The discard estimates
presented in this section largely consist of summaries of the information presented in GARM III.
More detailed information for each stock can be found in the NMFS’ full GARM III report.
Generally, the estimates of discards can be divided into three broad categories: stocks for which
no estimates are possible, stocks for which estimates are possible but are not included in the
catch-at-age matrix (for a variety of reasons), and stocks for which estimates are available and are
included in the catch-at-age matrix. These broad categories are not unchanging, in that the
precisions of discard estimates for any given stock may change over time. This can be due to
many reasons, such as changes in sampling or in the level of observer coverage.
Most discard estimates are categorized according to gear, as opposed to other criteria such as
target species. There are exceptions to this general rule, however, as estimates are generated for
specific small mesh fisheries (northern shrimp is the primary example). Estimates for recreational
fisheries are also included in assessments for some stocks. Information on discard mortality varies
on a stock-to stock basis. For most stocks managed in the multispecies fishery, reliable estimates
of discard mortality are not available and the assumption used in the assessment is that all
discards are dead, with the exception of the winter flounder stocks which assume ea 50%
mortality rate for discards.
While the primary sources of data for commercial fishery discard estimates are VTRs and the sea
sampling/observer program, a variety of statistical methods convert the information from these
systems into discard estimates. In addition, some discard estimates are generated through a
statistical examination of survey data, fishing effort, and fishery selectivity patterns. These
methods are described in detail in the pertinent assessment documents and various technical
memoranda.
There are nineteen groundfish stocks identified as regulated groundfish managed through this
action. Commercial discard estimates are available for eighteen of these stocks from their most
recent assessments. Only U.S. discards are included in this summary, although Canadian discards
are listed for some stocks in the GARM III. Total discard estimates in this section are provided in
metric tons, while discards-at-age are presented in numbers (in thousands). For some stocks,
discard estimates are available for over thirty years. The summary below, however, focuses on
discard estimates since 1989 (where available). As suggested earlier, the precision of the
estimates varies from stock to stock, as does the level of detail. More information about precision
estimates and further details can be found in the GARM III report. For some stocks, discard
estimates are available by gear and age, while for others only total commercial discards are
presented in the technical documents. Recreational estimates of discards are included in the
assessments of only five stocks, and are based on Marine Recreational Fishery Statistical
Sampling (MRFSS) data. While MRFSS may allow calculation of discards for other stocks, only
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

435

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery

those stocks where the information was included in the GARM are presented in this summary.
The most recent estimate of discards is summarized in Figure 80 and described further below.
Prior to GARM III, there were occasionally stocks where discard estimates were available but
were not used as input data for the assessments. This is no longer the case – where discard
estimates were made they were included as input data in the assessment. For some stocks only the
total weight of discards is available and discards at age are not.
Figure 80 summarizes groundfish discards for CY 1989 – 2007. Discards have declined
dramatically since 1990 but showed s slight increase in 2007 that appears due primarily to
increased discards of the large GB haddock 2003 year class. GB cod discards also increased in
2007. Examination of the stock specific summaries reveals that in most instances the discards of
younger fish have been dramatically reduced through changes in gear since 1994. While discards
have declined significantly regulatory discards (induced primarily by the use of trip limits)
remain a concern in this fishery.

Figure 80 – Groundfish Discards (mt), 1989-2007
40000

35000
Atl Halibut
GOM Haddock
SNEMA Window
GOM/GB Window
Ocean Pout
Redfish
White Hake
GB Winter
SNEMA Winter
GOM Winter
Am Plaice
Witch Fl
GOM Cod
CCGOM YT
SNEMA YT
GB Yellowtail
GB Haddock
GB Cod

30000

Discards (mt)

25000

20000

15000

10000

5000

0
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Year

Oceana Report
In July 2005, a report on bycatch and discards in U.S. fisheries was commissioned by the
nonprofit group Oceana. In that paper, discards for the 2002 fishing year were calculated for
species in the northeast multispecies FMP. The results where significantly different (and
generally higher) than the numbers in the GARM III estimations (Table 161). They were
calculated using the ratio-estimator method for individual fishing years, and focused on target
species by gear type. The methods used in the Oceana report are believed to be less accurate than

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

436

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery

those used in GARM III. The full report can be found on Oceana’s website at
http://www.oceana.org/fileadmin/oceana/uploads/Big_Fish_Report/PDF_Bycatch_July28.pdf.
Table 161 – Estimates of 2002 discards for the major target species in the northeast groundfish FMP
from the 2005 Oceana report

6.2.7.1

Commercial Fishery Discards

6.2.7.1.1 Discard estimates included in a catch-at-age matrix
GB Cod
Atlantic cod discarded in the USA Georges Bank otter trawl, gillnet, and scallop fisheries were
estimated using the NEFSC Observer data. A ratio of discarded cod to total kept of all species
was estimated on a trip basis. Total discards (mt) were estimated by applying that ratio to
commercial landings (Figure 81). In 2007, the fishery discarded a series high of 1,040 mt, or 22%
of total catch. In contrast, discards in 1999 only accounted for 2% of total catch.
Discards at age were estimated annually by applying combined survey and commercial agelength keys to observer length frequency data (Table 162). The majority of discards occurred
among age 1 to 3 fish until 1999, and ages 2 to 3 or 4 after that year.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

437

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery
Figure 81 – GB Cod Landings and Discards (mt), 1989-2007
GB Cod Landings and Discards
35000

Metric Tons

30000
25000
20000

Discards
Landings

15000
10000
5000

07
20

Year

Table 162 – GB Cod Discards-at-Age (thousands of fish), 1989-2007
Year Age 1 Age 2 Age 3 Age 4 Age 5 Age 6 Age 7 Age 8
715
521
89
5
0
0
0
0
1989
43
444
119
12
4
0
0
0
1990
89
247
52
18
4
3
0
1
1991
91
607
23
8
7
2
2
0
1992
18
273
65
2
2
2
0
1
1993
46.6
135
30
6
1
0
0
0
1994
11.7
70
33
3
1
0
0
0
1995
34.7
29
19
10
2
1
0
0
1996
57.1
54
13
6
4
0
0
0
1997
15.9
25
16
6
3
1
0
0
1998
37.3
45
32
5
0
0
0
0
1999
13
67
22
17
3
1
0
0
2000
7
179
103
9
7
2
0
0
2001
25
66
116
25
5
0
0
0
2002
10
92
38
36
14
2
1
0
2003
20
30
70
4
4
2
0
0
2004
8
241
61
49
5
3
2
0
2005
19
36
195
10
12
1
0
0
2006
10
364
184
119
5
7
0
0
2007

Age 9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

Age 10+
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

Total
1331
623
414
740
363
219
119
96
134
69
120
123
307
237
193
129
370
273
689

GOM Cod
Commercial discards were estimated for the 1989-2007 period on a gear-quarter basis from
NEFSC Observer Program data using SBRM methods incorporating cod discard/cod kept ratios
(Figure 82). The revised estimates indicate a substantial increase in the discard/kept ratio in 1999,
at 190%, compared to previous years, which saw a high of 20% in 1990. Ratios calculated for
years after 1999 were lower, but still remain substantially greater than the 1989-1998 ratios.
Discards estimated from the Observer Program data have ranged from 97 mt in 1998 to 3,092 mt
in 1990.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

438

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery

The discard estimates were used to generate the discards at age from 1999 to present (Table 163).
In general, the discards at age and total catch at age in numbers were dominated by age 3 and 4
fish through 2001, with ages 4-6 predominating during the past 6 years.
Figure 82 – GOM Cod Landings and Discards (mt), 1989-2007

20000
18000
16000
14000
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
5

7
20
0

20
0

19
9

19
8

Discards
Landings

19
9

Metric Tons

GOM Cod Landings and Discards

Year

Table 163 – GOM Cod Discards-at-Age (thousands of fish), 1999-2007
Year
Age 1
Age 2
Age 3
Age 4
Age 5
Age 6
Age 7
Age 8
0
6
350
335
155
31
43
4
1999
0
27
69
134
33
19
3
1
2000
0
15
155
104
68
22
12
2
2001
0
1
49
187
74
45
18
5
2002
0
2
15
65
125
39
17
7
2003
0
0
19
17
28
22
7
3
2004
0
0
3
33
5
14
6
2
2005
0
0
18
29
46
3
10
5
2006
0
1
13
83
13
24
1
2
2007

Age 9
0
0
3
2
3
2
1
2
1

Age 10
3
0
0
2
2
1
0
1
1

Age 11+
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
1

GB Haddock
Discards of Georges Bank haddock were estimated using at-sea observer sampling data and the
discard methodology using a ratio of kept haddock to discarded of all species. Most of the
discards are estimated to be from trawl gear, with a small amount coming from hook/line gear,
and negligible amounts from gillnet and scallop dredge. While the discarded fraction of catch has
typically been low, it has increased in recent years to 33% in 2006 and 40% in 2007. Much of the
discarding is estimated to be on western Georges Bank, although the number of observed trips on
eastern Georges Bank was rather low in the 1990s. On eastern Georges Bank, estimated discards
in years 2004-2007 averaged 231 mt, while they were 1004 mt on western Georges Bank. The
average discarding for the period 2004-2007 is about seven times larger than the average for
2000-2003.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

439

Total
925
286
382
383
277
99
65
114
139

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery

Age data shows high variability in the ages of fish discarded. Most discards occurred on fish ages
2 through 4 or 5, but in some years discards were much heavier on age zero or 1 fish, and fish 5
years and older.
Figure 83 – GB Haddock Landings and Discards (mt), 1989-2007

07
20

03
20

01
20

99
19

97
19

Discards
Landings

9000
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0

Metric Tons

GB Haddock Landings and Discards

Year

Table 164 – GB Haddock Discards-at-Age (thousands of fish), 1989-2007
Year
Age 0
Age 1
Age 2
Age 3
Age 4
Age 5
Age 6
0
2
140
26
22
2
12
1989
0
61
1
49
5
5
1
1990
0
1
22
3
4
0
1
1991
0
77
15
3
1
8
0
1992
0
26
68
63
2
2
2
1993
0
26
291
399
80
81
18
1994
8
15
24
22
12
2
1
1995
21
6
17
16
20
15
1
1996
0
12
51
54
50
27
11
1997
19
5
45
16
31
29
16
1998
0
2
7
22
5
4
4
1999
5
2
16
18
8
5
3
2000
0
12
15
74
27
15
7
2001
0
2
109
46
40
11
4
2002
13
3
10
94
15
42
8
2003
1
468
30
55
439
58
74
2004
35
18
498
8
20
132
15
2005
0
158
14
959
28
34
185
2006
1
12
143
48
2843
40
119
2007

Age 7
2
1
0
0
0
173
2
0
1
2
2
3
5
5
8
12
28
26
810

Age 8
1
0
1
0
0
25
3
0
2
0
3
2
3
2
2
17
4
40
64

Age 9
1
0
0
0
0
70
1
5
6
5
2
2
3
2
4
9
2
13
253

GOM Haddock
Estimates of commercial discards were calculated using the combined-ratio method. Discards
were estimated for five commercial fleets: the large mesh bottom otter trawl (≥ 5.5”), small mesh
bottom otter trawl (< 5.5”), benthic longline, sink gillnet, midwater-paired otter trawl, and
midwater otter trawl fleets. These five fleets constitute the majority of total Gulf of Maine
haddock discards. Discards constitute a minor fraction of total fishery removals with the
exception of the 1994 to 1997 period, when restrictive trip limits were in place. Discards
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

440

Total
208
123
32
104
163
1163
90
101
214
168
51
64
161
221
199
1163
760
1457
4333

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery

accounted for 44% of the total catch in 1994, and more than 30% in the other years between
1994-1997. Outside of that time period, the most discards as a percentage of catch occurred at
13% in 1993, and the least was in 1990 at less than 1%.
Because of the relative sparseness of discard sampling by the Northeast Fisheries Observer
Program, a non-fleet specific annual discard length frequency was used to characterize the length
distribution of the discarded catch. Age-length keys were supplemented with survey age data, and
discards at age were estimated using the BioStat software. In very general terms, discards
primarily occurred at ages zero through 3 until 1996, and at ages 1 through 4 after 1997. An
exception was 1998, which saw high discards of age zero fish, and subsequent years saw high
discards of fish from that year class.
Figure 84 – GOM Haddock Landings and Discards (mt), 1989-2007
GOM Haddock Landings and Discards
1200

Metric Tons

1000
800
Discards
Landings

600
400
200

07
20

95
19

Year

Table 165 – GOM Haddock Discards-at-Age (thousands of fish), 1989-2007
Year
Age 0
Age 1
Age 2
Age 3
Age 4
Age 5
Age 6
Age 7
0
3.4
7.1
0.8
1.7
0
0
0
1989
4.5
4.5
0
1.8
0
0
0
0
1990
9.2
7.9
2.2
0.4
0
0
0
0
1991
4.8
20.4
11
4.8
0.1
0
0
0
1992
15.7
12.4
17.8
3.1
1.8
0.2
0.6
0.1
1993
60.4
89.9
17.8
21.4
3.9
1.5
3.2
2
1994
0.9
50.1
58.5
42
14.5
1.6
0.9
0.6
1995
47.7
9.9
32.4
85.8
10.3
1.7
0.4
0.4
1996
0.2
2.9
5.7
87.4
123.1
23.9
4.4
1.5
1997
107.6
13.3
13.8
1.5
4.7
5
0
0
1998
1.1
8.4
0.7
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0
1999
1.1
5.4
47
14.2
1.7
0.2
0.4
0.1
2000
1.2
1.6
11.2
21.1
2.3
0.4
0.4
0.3
2001
0
2.1
1.3
6.6
17.3
1.8
0.3
0
2002
0
0.1
3.9
1
3.6
14.3
1.5
0.3
2003
0.3
7.8
0.4
4.9
1.1
2.9
12.1
1
2004
0
0.3
15.6
1
5.1
4.3
4.1
10.1
2005
5.2
9.4
1.6
35.9
3.8
3.7
1.6
2.8
2006
0
1.7
12.7
4.1
27.8
0.3
1.8
0.5
2007

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

441

Age 8
0
0
0
0
0.4
0.3
0
0.2
0.5
0
0
0
0
0.1
0.2
0.4
0.6
9.2
1.4

Age 9+
0
0
0
0
0.6
0.4
0
0
0.2
0
0
0
0
0.1
0.1
0.5
0.5
0.4
4.8

Total
13
10.8
19.8
41
52.7
200.8
169.1
189
249.8
145.9
10.8
70.1
38.6
29.5
25
31.4
41.5
73.6
55.1

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery

GB Yellowtail Flounder
US discarded catch for years 1994-2007 was estimated using the SBRM recommended in the
GARM III Data meeting. Observed ratios of discards of yellowtail flounder to kept of all species
for large mesh otter trawl, small mesh otter trawl, and scallop dredge were applied to the total
landings by these gears by half-year. Discards varied from approximately 66% (in 1992) to 7%
(in 1997) of the US catch in years 1989-2007 (Figure 85).
Discards at age and associated mean weights at age were estimated from sea sampled lengths and
pooled observer and survey age-length keys. Fish were discarded across all age classes, but in
general there were fewer age one fish discarded after approximately 1993 and more age six-plus
fish discarded after approximately 1998.
Figure 85 – GB Yellowtail Flounder Landings and Discards (mt), 1989-2007

GB Yellowtail Landings and Discards
7000

Metric Tons

6000
5000
4000

Discards

3000

Landings

2000
1000

19
89
19
91
19
93
19
95
19
97
19
99
20
01
20
03
20
05
20
07

Year

Table 166 – GB Yellowtail Flounder Discards-at-Age (thousands of fish), 1989-2007
Year
Age 1
Age 2
Age 3
Age 4
Age 5
Age 6+
Total
190
791
433
157
40
11
1622
1989
231
1373
2372
234
34
6
4250
1990
663
119
585
653
81
8
2109
1991
2414
5912
1037
270
90
14
9737
1992
5229
731
928
436
69
11
7404
1993
27
401
331
104
41
7
911
1994
41
130
416
232
51
11
881
1995
99
313
551
281
68
9
1321
1996
47
733
645
400
111
20
1956
1997
146
1207
986
433
183
79
3034
1998
43
1191
848
266
149
72
2569
1999
68
650
762
470
130
141
2221
2000
65
449
863
306
109
67
1859
2001
42
324
406
188
79
55
1094
2002
75
1022
1072
370
123
86
2748
2003

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

442

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery
64
60
154
50

2004
2005
2006
2007

821
597
965
1131

697
767
902
622

349
211
375
135

128
76
96
22

95
20
45
8

2154
1731
2537
1968

SNE/MA Yellowtail Flounder
Discarded catch for years 1994-2007 was estimated using the SBRM recommended in the GARM
III data meeting. Three commercial fleets (large mesh otter trawl, ≥ 5.5”; small mesh otter trawl,
< 5.5”; and scallop dredge) were considered to estimate discards as these fleets constituted the
majority of the total discards of this stock. Observed ratios of discards of yellowtail flounder to
kept of all species for large mesh otter trawl, small mesh otter trawl, and scallop dredge were
applied to the total landings by half-year. In the years 1989-2007, discards ranged from
approximately 65% (in 1989) to 2% (in 2001) of the total catch (Figure 86). Discards contributed
to almost 50% of the total catch in 2007.
Discards at age were estimated from sea sampled lengths and pooled observer and survey agelength keys. The age-length key was supplemented significantly by the industry-based survey
(IBS) in years 2003-2005. Discards occurred primarily at ages one through four from 1989-1994,
ages two through four through 2003, and two through five through 2007 (Table 167).
Figure 86 – SNE/MA Yellowtail Flounder Landings and Discards (mt), 1989-2007
SNE/MA Yellowtail Flounder Landings and
Discards

Metric Tons

20000
15000
Discards
Landings

10000
5000

07
20

99
19

Year

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

443

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery

Table 167 – SNE/MA Yellowtail Flounder Discards-at-Age (thousands of fish), 1989-2007
Year
Age 1
Age 2
Age 3
Age 4
Age 5
Age 6+
Total
24
14002
1834
131
6
0
15997
1989
192
1634
23721
673
11
0
26231
1990
446
1357
2826
2889
12
0
7530
1991
477
1152
1086
659
33
0
3407
1992
13
212
15
9
0
0
249
1993
362
836
126
183
85
8
1600
1994
1
373
114
37
4
7
536
1995
3
227
497
58
11
7
803
1996
22
446
565
142
25
2
1202
1997
19
968
364
60
3
25
1439
1998
10
214
164
24
15
1
428
1999
2
217
101
49
2
6
377
2000
0
13
57
9
1
0
80
2001
1
26
20
11
2
1
61
2002
2
60
131
41
10
5
249
2003
4
80
56
60
51
25
276
2004
66
144
68
40
31
15
364
2005
19
224
190
42
6
12
493
2006
6
206
261
47
22
0
542
2007

CC/GOM Yellowtail Flounder
Discarded catch for years 1994-2007 was estimated using the Standardized Bycatch Reporting
Methodology recommended in the GARM III Data meeting. Observed ratios of discards of
yellowtail flounder to kept of all species for large mesh otter trawl, small mesh otter trawl, scallop
dredge, and gillnet were applied to the total landings by these gears by half-year. Discards were
approximately 15% of the catch in years 1994-2006.
Discards at age were estimated from sea sampled lengths and pooled observer and survey agelength keys. Discarded fish were primarily age one through four from 1989-1993, and age two
through four from 1994 through 2007. Increased discards on age five fish also occurred from
1994 on, as well as occasional small amounts of age six discards.
Figure 87 – CC/GOM Yellowtail Flounder Landings and Discards (mt), 1989-2007
CC/GOM Yellowtail Flounder Landings and
Discards
5000
Metric Tons

4000
3000

Discards
Landings

2000
1000

07
20

03
20

95
19

Year

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

444

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery

Table 168 – CC/GOM Yellowtail Flounder Discards-at-Age (thousands of fish), 1989-2007
Year
Age 1
Age 2
Age 3
Age 4
Age 5
Age 6+
Total
118
1459
528
11
0
0
2116
1989
84
2180
2738
21
0
0
5023
1990
465
1011
700
234
7
0
2417
1991
1709
3569
930
87
3
0
6298
1992
159
391
206
72
0
0
828
1993
19
710
332
47
11
1
1120
1994
37
147
335
52
3
0
574
1995
26
339
516
219
55
0
1155
1996
8
850
831
215
61
7
1972
1997
38
443
616
75
18
3
1193
1998
9
231
265
18
6
0
529
1999
2
189
209
52
6
5
463
2000
20
400
404
27
0
0
851
2001
37
207
111
21
1
0
377
2002
10
245
193
49
4
0
501
2003
13
389
412
118
15
9
956
2004
15
394
502
63
2
3
979
2005
7
84
156
39
7
0
293
2006
14
158
221
69
18
0
480
2007

American Plaice
The NEFSC Observer Database was used to estimate discard to kept ratios (d:k) of discarded
American plaice to total kept of all species, on a trip basis. Total mt of American plaice discards
were then estimated by applying the d:k to commercial landings. Discards of American plaice
were estimated for both the large mesh fisheries in the GOM and GB and for the northern shrimp
fishery in the GOM. Discarding of small fish historically occurred in the northern shrimp fishery
during the 1st and 4th calendar quarter, however, in recent years the discards are minimal. Discards
in the large mesh fishery occur year-round. Discards as a percentage of total catch have been
generally decreasing throughout the time period. Total discards accounted for about 18% of the
total catch during 2005-2007.
Observer length frequencies, and both research survey and commercial age-length keys were
applied to estimate discards at age. Small mesh fishery discards are not included in the catch at
age matrix. Discarded fish are primarily age two through six, although some years saw increased
discarding of age one fish and more recent years seem to have a higher proportion of age seven
through eleven plus fish discarded compared to the past.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

445

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery
Figure 88 – American Plaice Landings and Discards (mt), 1989-2007
American Plaice Landings and Discards
8000

Metric Tons

7000
6000
5000

Discards
Landings

4000
3000
2000
1000

7
20
0

20
0

03
20

20
0

19
9

93
19

19
9

19
8

Year

Table 169 – American Plaice Discards-at-Age (thousands of fish), 1989-2007
Year Age 0 Age 1 Age 2 Age 3 Age 4 Age 5 Age 6 Age 7 Age 8
0
15.5
2275 2530.1
2066
836.2 323.7
86.9
65
1989
0
0 1094.4 4523.6
2761
923.1 195.8
76.9
55
1990
0
0.4
255.2 1007.9 4147.2 2047.6 155.6
7.2
1.4
1991
0
9.6
244.5
815.7
865.5
939.3
86.5
36.3
0
1992
0
21.8
280.6
299
745.8
345.1 126.3
2
0
1993
0.7
58.2
862.6
211.1
814.4
974.7
79.6
3.3
0.2
1994
1.1
45.3 2433.7 1432.7 1648.5
440.5
125
14
11.4
1995
0
12.5 1049.5 1083.9 1238.7
337.4 106.4
37.4
3.3
1996
0
14.7
636.1
335 1058.1 1033.1 177.9
21.5
0.3
1997
0
37.2
85.4
343
692.1
1366 714.6
74.8
0.4
1998
0
4.2
216.3
167.4
912.4
689.2 688.9 231.7
46.7
1999
0
2.7
303
329.2
380.6
220.2 106.2
41.9
1.6
2000
0
0
91.7
413.8
567.7
396 206.9
65.2
18
2001
0
1.1
12.8
106.1
444.1
377.8 147.1
36.3
15.7
2002
0
11.9
689.1
45.5
167.7
456.1
177
30
34.2
2003
0
6.2
140
219.6
317.2
466.5 358.5
70.6
14.7
2004
0
34.3
283.5
103.8
246.5
407.7 192.7
57
10.6
2005
0
28.4
83.3
112.2
309.6
276.1
134
60
14.3
2006
0
160
237.7
203.4
341.4
220.4
89.5
14.7
3.7
2007

Age 9
2.8
0.2
0.7
0
0
0.2
0.5
2.7
0
0
2.4
0
6
9.8
11.5
4.8
0.7
2.5
0.8

Age 10
0.7
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0.4
0
0.1
4.2
0.6
1.6
0.4
4.6
2.8

Witch Flounder
Discards have been estimated for three fleets: northern shrimp trawl, large-mesh (>=5.5 inch)
otter trawl, and small-mesh (<5.5 inch) otter trawl. Discards from the northern shrimp fishery
were estimated using two methods: when no observer data were available (1998-2002), a
regression of age 3 fish in the autumn NEFSC survey and observed discard rates was used to
estimate ratios of discard weight to days fished (d/df) ratios. When observer data were available
(1989-1997, 2003-2007), d/df ratios were calculated by fishing zone (a surrogate for depth). To
estimate discard weight, the mean discard ratio (weighted by days fished in each fishing zone)
was expanded by the days fished in the northern shrimp fishery. The estimation of large-mesh
otter trawl discards is based upon two methods. For 1982 to 1988, a method which filters survey
length frequency data through a commercial gear retention ogive and a culling ogive was used
and then a semi-annual ratio estimator of survey-filtered ‘kept’ index to semi-annual numbers
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

446

Age 11+
2.3
0
0
0
0
0
0
4.8
0
0
0
0
5.9
1.3
10.3
1.2
0.8
0.8
0

Total
8204
9630.1
7623
2997.3
1821
3004.4
6152.6
3878.6
3276.3
3313.3
2959.6
1385.8
1771.2
1155.9
1633.8
1601.3
1337.7
1025.6
1274.3

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery

landed was used to expand the estimated ‘discard’ survey index to numbers of fish discarded at
length. For 1989 to 2007, an annual combined ratio of witch flounder discard weight to kept
weight of all species ratios (d/kall) was calculated from observer data. Total discard weight was
derived by multiplying the d/kall ratio by the commercial large-mesh otter trawl landings.
Observed discard length frequencies are used to estimate discarded fish at length. Semi-annual
numbers of fish discarded were apportioned to age using the corresponding seasonal NEFSC
survey age/length key. Witch flounder discards from the small-mesh otter trawl fisheries were
also estimated using an annual combined ratio for this fleet and expanded to total discards by
commercial landings of small-mesh otter trawls. Given the possession regulations for this fleet,
the commercial catch at age was used to apportion the small mesh otter trawl discard weight to
discards at age. For 2003 to 2005, witch flounder discards in the northern shrimp fishery were
estimated to be near zero. For 2006 and 2007, discards were estimated to be very small and are
associated primarily with the 2004 year class. Discards from the large mesh otter trawl fishery
account for the majority of total discards.
Witch flounder discarded in the northern shrimp fishery range in age from 0 to 6, with the
majority at ages 1-3. The estimated discard weight of witch flounder from the shrimp fishery is
small compared to the other trawl fleets. Witch flounder discarded in the large-mesh otter trawl
fishery range in age from 0 to 6, with the majority at ages 4 to 5. The majority of discards for the
small-mesh otter trawl fleet occur between ages 1 to 6, and the discards are a small component of
total catch.
Figure 89 – Witch Flounder Landings and Discards (mt), 1989-2007
Witch Flounder Landings and Discards
4000

Metric Tons

3500
3000
2500

Discards
Landings

2000
1500
1000
500

07
20

03
20

93
19

Year

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

447

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery

Table 170 – Witch Flounder Discards-at-Age (thousands of fish), 1989-2007
Year Age 0 Age 1 Age 2 Age 3 Age 4 Age 5 Age 6 Age 7 Age 8
0.7
11.1
52.6
89.7 303.5 104.1
0
0
0.4
1989
1.2
5.2 117.0 303.2 200.7 200.6
0
0
0
1990
3.0
17.8
79.0 496.3 451.0 348.9 129.8
0
0
1991
2.7
43.4 137.0 161.9 460.1 273.9 130.0
12.0
0
1992
78.8 108.2
86.5 584.2 395.4
5.9
2.2
0
1993 112.1
8.1 1368.5 498.5
67.2 439.2 629.9
59.4 119.2
2.3
1994
2.7
49.9 658.6 640.9 354.4 278.3 108.1
2.4
1.0
1995
5.2
32.7
51.5 141.8 327.2 418.0
61.4
0
0
1996
8.7
74.9 106.8 124.3 485.9 366.8 155.8
5.4
1.4
1997
49.8
392.3 278.5 221.0 283.5 241.0
71.0
10.2
0.3
1998
32.1
253.0 188.9 146.5 275.9 340.6
51.8
15.5
1.9
1999
21.6
170.0 121.2 122.2 291.2 297.9
74.7
17.5
2.9
2000
12.3
97.0
66.3
65.1 310.5 645.8 176.7
43.1
0.1
2001
2.3
19.1
15.8
32.5 407.0 471.2 125.1
34.9
5.9
2002
0
1.4
6.7
32.0 226.2 585.7 379.4 120.4
23.7
2003
0
0.1
9.6
33.0 169.1 476.8 383.7 116.8
31.7
2004
0
5.9
14.6
15.3 109.1 196.1 159.0
53.8
9.4
2005
0
2.6
20.4
47.2
36.2
61.1 136.8
36.6
9.8
2006
0
2.1
19.1
69.7
69.8
52.9
37.4
18.1
2.0
2007

Age 9
0
0
0
0
0
2.8
0.3
0
0.8
0.2
0.8
0
0.1
2.8
6.4
15.1
4.6
3.7
1.9

Age 10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.1
1.3
13.5
1.3
2.1
0

Age 11+
0
0
0
0
0
7.9
0
0
0.2
0
0
0
0
1.1
1.4
8.0
0.9
1.8
0.5

GB Winter Flounder
Initial estimates of GB winter flounder discards were calculated for the large mesh bottom trawl
fleet, small mesh groundfish fleet, and the sea scallop dredge fleet (“limited permits” only).
Discards (mt) were estimated based on fisheries observer data and the landings data using the
combined ratio method described in Wigley et al. The discard ratio estimator consisted of
discards of GB winter flounder divided by the sum of all species kept by a particular fleet. Due to
a lack of fisheries observer data, discard estimates for the scallop fleet prior to 1992 were
hindcast back to 1964 based on an equation using the average d:k ratio from 1992-1998. During
1989-2007, discards were primarily attributable to the scallop dredge fleet during most years,
ranging between 66% and 100%. Discards ranged from <1% to 25 % of the total landings during
1989-2007 and were higher during 1989-1991 than during 1992-2007 (Figure 90). Discards
reached a peak of 314 mt in 1991 then declined sharply to their lowest level (1 mt) in 1995.
During 1999-2003, discards declined from 85 mt in 1999 to 9 mt in 2003, but have increased
since then. Discards nearly doubled between 2006 (110 mt) and 2007 (193 mt) and predominately
came from the scallop dredge fleet.
The annual number of lengths sampled from winter flounder discards in the bottom trawl
and scallop dredge fisheries was inadequate to characterize discard length compositions
during most years. As a result, discards at age were characterized based on the assumption that
fish smaller than the minimum regulatory size limits were discarded. Examination of length-atage data indicates that fish of this size are one year old in the NEFSC fall surveys and two years
old in the spring surveys. Therefore, discards at age for the bottom trawl fleet, during 1989-2001,
were estimated by dividing the estimated weight of discarded winter flounder from the bottom
trawl fleet, during January-June, by the annual mean weights of age 2 fish from the NEFSC
spring surveys. Likewise, winter flounder discard weights for July-December were divided by the
annual mean weights of age 1 fish from the NEFSC fall surveys. Discards at age for the bottom
trawl fleet, during 2002-2007, were estimated by using the discard numbers at length, binned as
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

448

Total
562.1
827.9
1525.7
1221.0
1373.3
3202.9
2096.5
1037.9
1330.9
1547.7
1306.9
1119.1
1417.0
1118.8
1384.8
1257.4
570.0
358.4
273.4

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery

January-June and July-December, to characterize the proportion discarded at length and ages
were determined by applying the NEFSC spring and fall survey age-length keys and lengthweight relationships, respectively. Length compositions of discarded fish in the bottom trawl
fishery indicate that for most years during 2002-2007, discarding of all sizes of winter flounder
occurred (Table 171), particularly since the establishment of Georges Bank winter flounder trip
limits in May of 2006. Discards at age for the scallop dredge fishery were estimated by scaling up
the length at age by the ratio of scallop dredge discards to total landings. Discards occur across all
age categories, but primarily ages 2-4 during 1989-1997 and ages 3-5 during 1998-2003. Total
discards were lower after 2004 than before and discards of age 1 fish were much higher prior to
the 1994 when the minimum codend mesh size (5.5 in) and minimum fish retention size (28 cm)
was smaller.
Figure 90 – GB Winter Flounder Landings and Discards (mt), 1989-2007
GB Winter Flounder Landings and Discards
3000

Metric Tons

2500
2000
Discards
Landings

1500
1000
500

7
20
0

20
0

03
20

20
0

19
9

93
19

19
9

19
8

Year

Table 171 – GB Winter Flounder Discards-at-Age (thousands of fish), 1989-2007
Year
Age 1
Age 2
Age 3
Age 4
Age 5
Age 6
Age 7+
Total
34
1,556
1,340
559
161
117
66
3,833
1989
36
370
2,248
739
204
50
18
3,667
1990
2
656
1,389
1,040
149
41
66
3,343
1991
23
764
704
678
436
86
57
2,748
1992
39
285
1,062
419
297
152
44
2,296
1993
8
353
598
339
92
47
43
1,478
1994
365
688
168
138
103
31
40
1,534
1995
35
1,336
424
185
95
98
88
2,261
1996
2
52
27
12
2
1
1
96
1997
0
10
1,445
837
132
44
12
2,480
1998
70
395
808
536
151
20
21
2,001
1999
52
676
1,100
366
253
185
159
2,791
2000
15
376
1,276
799
584
157
99
3,306
2001
0
117
890
728
427
227
182
2,571
2002
0
257
689
918
452
251
398
2,968
2003
3
25
15
17
5
4
8
76
2004
4
41
18
19
11
18
12
123
2005
4
12
23
24
24
6
9
102
2006
11
34
32
35
47
13
14
186
2007

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

449

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery

GOM Winter Flounder
Discards were estimated for the large mesh trawl, gillnet, and northern shrimp fishery. Observer
discard to landings of all species ratios were applied to corresponding commercial fishery
landings to estimate discards in weight for the large mesh trawl fishery. The observer sum
discarded to landing of all species ratios were used for estimating gillnet discard rates. Observer
sum discarded to days fished ratios were used for the northern shrimp fishery since landing of
winter flounder in the shrimp fishery is prohibited. The observer length frequency data for gillnet
and the northern shrimp fishery were used to characterize the proportion discarded at length. The
sample proportion at length, converted to weight, was used to convert the discard estimate in
weight to numbers at length. As in the southern New England stock, a 50% mortality rate was
applied to all commercial discard data. Discards were generally low compared to overall catch.
Discards accounted for a high of 9.5% of total removals in 1997 and a low of only two percent in
1989 and 2003.
Numbers at ages were determined using NEFSC/MDMF spring and NEFSC fall survey agelength keys. In general, most discards were comprised of age one to four fish, although later years
included fewer age one fish.
Figure 91 – GOM Winter Flounder Landings and Discards (mt), 1989-2007
GOM Winter Flounder Landings and Discards
1400

Metric Tons

1200
1000
800

Discards
Landings

600
400
200

07
20

03
20

93
19

Year

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

450

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery
Table 172 – GOM Winter Flounder Discards-at-Age (thousands of fish), 1989-2007
Year
Age 1
Age 2
Age 3
Age 4
Age 5
Age 6
Age 7
Age 8+
24
77
43
16
3
1
0
0
1989
9
47
114
58
8
0
0
0
1990
18
117
82
30
2
0
0
0
1991
44
182
77
15
1
0
0
0
1992
28
64
70
25
4
0
0
0
1993
18
73
37
15
3
0
0
0
1994
27
62
44
22
5
2
1
0
1995
16
41
27
14
2
0
0
0
1996
19
136
93
66
26
0
0
0
1997
20
38
32
16
4
0
1
0
1998
7
13
18
11
3
2
1
1
1999
17
24
30
19
9
2
0
0
2000
13
21
32
26
7
3
0
0
2001
4
28
32
20
6
2
0
0
2002
9
36
28
11
4
1
0
1
2003
10
57
77
17
2
2
1
0
2004
15
42
46
20
4
2
0
0
2005
7
12
25
11
2
0
0
0
2006
7
11
34
16
4
0
0
0
2007

Total
164
236
249
319
191
146
163
100
340
111
56
101
102
92
90
166
129
57
72

SNE/MA Winter Flounder
Prior to 1994, NEFSC trawl survey length frequencies and commercial trawl fishery
mesh selection data were used to estimate the magnitude and characterize the length frequency of
the commercial fishery discard. For 1994-2007, NEFSC Fishery Observer trawl and scallop
fishery discards to landings ratio estimates were applied to corresponding commercial fishery
landings to estimate discards in weight. The NEFSC Fishery Observer length frequency samples
were used to characterize the proportion discarded at length for 1994-2007. Commercial fishery
discard length samples were applied on a semi- annual basis and ages were determined using
NEFSC survey spring and fall age-length keys. A discard mortality rate of 50% (Howell et al.,
1992) was applied to commercial fishery live discards. Discards were generally higher in earlier
years, both in weight and as a proportion of landings, than in later years. In 1989, discards
accounted for a series high of 28 percent of total removals, and 2001 saw a low of less than one
percent discards.
Discards-at-age showed high variability and no clear trend. In general, in 1989 and from 19931995 fish were primarily discarded at ages one through four. From 1990-1992, ages two through
four were most commonly discarded. From 1996 on, discards occurred at ages one or two through
five or six.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

451

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery
Figure 92 – SNE/MA Winter Flounder Landings and Discards (mt), 1989-2007
SNE/MA Winter Flounder Landings and Discards
6000

Metric Tons

5000
4000
Discards
Landings

3000
2000
1000

07
20

Year

Table 173 – SNE/MA Winter Flounder Discards-at-Age (thousands of fish), 1989-2007
Year
Age 1
Age 2
Age 3
Age 4
Age 5
Age 6
Age 7+
Total
315
2724
2,131
555
33
2
1
5,761
1989
16
781
1433
322
14
0
1
2,567
1990
17
1,238
1,205
227
12
1
0
2,700
1991
15
845
787
150
14
1
0
1,812
1992
201
849
467
57
6
0
0
1,580
1993
233
914
186
28
1
0
0
1,362
1994
86
254
193
25
3
0
0
561
1995
16
117
181
82
21
1
0
418
1996
73
205
256
102
16
0
0
651
1997
10
257
153
37
5
0
0
462
1998
2
30
57
45
16
7
2
158
1999
42
113
111
41
32
9
5
354
2000
12
44
35
11
1
0
0
102
2001
10
74
58
36
25
11
6
221
2002
8
47
68
26
16
35
19
219
2003
31
76
45
37
12
7
5
214
2004
22
107
47
30
17
12
8
243
2005
36
131
102
37
21
9
6
342
2006
9
60
100
57
15
8
4
254
2007

Acadian Redfish
Discards were estimated using the d/k ratio (ratio of sums) method. The discard estimates are
generally low (< 400mt) (Figure 93), but are sometimes a substantial proportion of total removals
during this period (Figure 94). There was a large amount of discards in 1991 (1514 mt), which
was roughly three times the corresponding landed biomass. However, on average discards
accounted for approximately 34 percent of total removals during the 1989-2007 time period.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

452

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery
Figure 93 – Acadian Redfish Discards (mt), 1989-2007
Acadian Redfish Discards, 1989-2007
1600

1400

1200

Metric Tons

1000

800

600

400

200

0
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Year

Figure 94 – Acadian Redfish Landings and Discards (mt), 1989-2007
Acadian Redfish Landings and Discards
2500

Metric Tons

2000
1500

Discards
Landings

1000
500

7
20
0

20
0

19
9

19
8

Year

White Hake
Commercial discards were estimated for white hake for 1989-2007 using the SBRM method of
white hake discard/all kept (Figure 95). In recent years, discards in both the otter trawl and the
sink gill net fisheries have been very low, and discards have been a small proportion of total
removals (Figure 96). The highest proportion of discards to total removals occurred in 1990 at
twenty-two percent. That year also had the series high of discards in metric tons, with 1384. In
2007, 29 mt of discards accounted for less than two percent of total catch.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

453

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery
Figure 95 – White Hake Commercial Discards (mt), 1989-2007
White Hake Discards, 1989-2007
1600

1400

1200

Metric Tons

1000

800

600

400

200

0
1989

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994

1995

1996

1997 1998 1999 2000

2001

2002 2003

2004 2005 2006 2007

Year

Figure 96 – White Hake Landings and Discards (mt), 1989-2007

07
20

05
20

Discards
Landings

10000
9000
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
19

Metric Tons

White Hake Landings and Discards

Year

GOM/GB Windowpane Flounder
Discard estimates (mt) for 1989-2007 were calculated using NEFOP data and the combined ratio
method for the large mesh bottom trawl fleet, small mesh groundfish fleet, and the sea scallop
fleets in Figure 97. Due to a lack of fisheries observer data prior to 1992 for the scallop fleet,
discard estimates were hindcast back to 1989 based on an equation using the average d:k ratio
from 1992-1998. During most years, discards are primarily (70%-80%) from the large mesh
bottom trawl fleet, although the scallop dredge fleet also contributed a substantial percentage
(30%-60%) of the total discards before 1993. The small mesh bottom trawl fleet comprised a low
percentage of the total discards, generally ≤ 5%, during most years. The amount of discards
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

454

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery

declined during 1997-2002, but has been increasing since then and reached the third highest level
on record in 2007 (913 mt) (Figure 97). Discards more than tripled between 2004 (288 mt) and
2005 (806 mt). Discards represented a smaller percentage of the total catch from 1989-1993
(averaging 27%), but have since comprised a majority of the catch (82% to 96%) (Figure 98). A
directed fishery occurred from 1989-1993, but is no longer in effect. During the directed fishery
period, windowpane flounder catches filled the market void left by depleted yellowtail flounder
stocks. NEFOP data indicate the primary reason for discarding since 1994 is the lack of a market
for windowpane.
Figure 97 – GOM/GB Windowpane Flounder Discards (mt), 1989-2007

GOM/GB Windowpane Flounder Discards, 1989-2007
1200

1000

Metric Tons

800

600

400

200

0
1989

1990

1991

1992 1993 1994 1995

1996

1997

1998 1999 2000

2001 2002

2003

2004 2005 2006

2007

Year

Figure 98 – GOM/GB Windowpane Flounder Landings and Discards (mt), 1989-2007

07
20

03
20

01
20

99
19

Discards
Landings

4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
19

Metric Tons

GOM/GB Windowpane Flounder Landings and
Discards

Year

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

455

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery

SNE/MA Windowpane Flounder
Initial estimates of SNE/MA windowpane flounder discards during 1989-2007 were calculated
using the same method as those for the GOM/GB stock. During most years since 1989,
windowpane discards were primarily from the large mesh bottom trawl fleet. However, a majority
of the total discards occurred in the scallop dredge/trawl fleet during 1993 and 1996-1999,
ranging between 30% and 67%, and in the small mesh groundfish trawl fleet during 1989, 1992,
1994 and 2001-2002 and ranged between 46% and 69%. Even during the period of the directed
fishery, the landings were dwarfed by the high level of discards that occurred; generally 2-5 times
the landings (Figure 100). During 1989-1991, total discards ranged between 3,133 mt and 4,510
mt (Figure 99). Since 1992, total discards have been much lower. However, during 2003-2007,
discards from the large mesh trawl fleet have increased to 200-300 mt per year. The NEFOP
database indicates that since 1994, the primary reason for discarding windowpane flounder is the
lack of a market for this thin-bodied flatfish. However, trip limits of 1,000 lbs (100 lbs per day)
when conducting a “B day” fishing trip were implemented beginning in November 2004.
Figure 99 – SNE/MA Windowpane Flounder Discards (mt), 1989-2007
SNE/MA Windowpane Flounder Discards, 1989-2007
5000

4500

4000

3500

Metric Tons

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0
1989 1990

1991 1992

1993 1994 1995 1996

1997 1998

1999 2000

Year

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

456

2001 2002

2003

2004 2005

2006 2007

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery
Figure 100 – SNE/MA Windowpane Flounder Landings and Discards (mt), 1989-2007

SNE/MA Windowpane Flounder Landings and
Discards
6000
Metric Tons

5000
4000
Discards
Landings

3000
2000
1000

07
20

05
20

03
20

99
19

97
19

93
19

91
19

Year

Ocean Pout
A combined ratio estimator, discard weight of ocean pout to kept weight of all species, was used
to estimate ocean pout discards in the otter trawl fishery by large (>=5.5 inch) and small (<5.5
inch) mesh groups, gillnet, and scallop dredge using the NEFOP data from the Cape Cod Bay,
Georges Bank and Southern New England and Mid-Atlantic regions. Limited NEFOP data are
available for gear types other than otter trawl, gillnet and scallop dredge gear. Total discards were
derived by expanding the discard ratios by the kept weight of all species, by gear type and mesh
group, using the dealer weighout data for 1989–2007. The majority of ocean pout discards occur
in the large-mesh and small-mesh otter trawl fisheries. Total discards range between 175 mt in
2007 to 9,434 mt in 1990 (
Figure 101). Discards far exceed landings in all years, accounting for up to 98% of total removals
(Figure 102). The primary reason reported in the NEFOP for ocean pout discards is “no market”.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

457

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery

Figure 101 – Ocean Pout Discards (mt), 1989-2007
Ocean Pout Discards, 1989-2007
10000

9000

8000

7000

Metric Tons

6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

0
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Year

Figure 102 – Ocean Pout Landings and Discards (mt), 1989-2007
Ocean Pout Landings and Discards
12000

Metric Tons

10000
8000
Discards
Landings

6000
4000
2000

07
20

05
20

03
20

01
20

99
19

97
19

95
19

93
19

91
19

Year

Atlantic Halibut
Discards from the NEFOP database were estimated based on the Standardized Bycatch Reporting
Methodology combined ratio estimation. Due to the low occurrence of Atlantic halibut in the
observer database, the 1989-1998 average discards were applied to the landings from 1893 to
1998 and the 1999-2007 average discards were applied to landings in those years. The amount of
discarded fish increased after 1999 (Figure 103), as well as the discard-to-kept ratio. The amount
of discarded fish was, on average, 17% that of kept fish from 1989-1998, and 147% from 19992007 (Figure 104). A trip limit of one halibut per trip and a 91 cm minimum retention size were
implemented in 1999.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

458

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery
Figure 103 – Atlantic Halibut Discards (mt), 1989-2007
Atlantic Halibut Discards, 1989-2007
35

Metric Tons

0
1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Year

Figure 104 – Atlantic Halibut Landings and Discards (mt), 1989-2007
Atlantic Halibut Landings and Discards
60

Metric Tons

50
40
Discards
Landings

30
20
10

07
20

05
20

01
20

97
19

95
19

93
19

91
19

Year

Atlantic Wolffish
Commercial fishery discards from U.S statistical areas were gathered from the Northeast
Fisheries Observer Program database for the period 1989-2007. Numbers were based on the
Standardized Bycatch Reporting Methodology combined ratio estimation. Discards appear to
be a small component of the overall catch of Atlantic wolffish. The maximum estimated
discards in any one year were 26.98 mt in 1989. Otter trawls accounted for 98.3% of the total
discarded wolffish from all years. Discards appear to be increasing in the gillnet sector,
which reported approximately 17% of the total wolffish discarded for 2007.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

459

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery
Figure 105 – Atlantic wolffish discards, 1989 - 2007

Atlantic Wolffish Discards (mt), 1989-2007
30

Metric Tons

25
20
15
10
5

20
07

20
05

20
03

20
01

19
99

19
97

19
95

19
93

19
91

19
89

Year

Figure 106 – Atlantic wolffish landings and discards, 1989 -2007
Atlantic Wolffish Landings and Discards
600

500

Metric Tons

400
Discards

300

Landings

200

100

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

1996

1995

1994

1993

1992

1991

1990

1989

Year

6.2.7.1.2 Stocks for Which No Estimates Are Provided
Recent discard estimates are not available for pollock from GARM III.

6.2.7.2

Recreational Fishery Discards

Information for recreational discards is collected through the MRFSS/MRIP system.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

460

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery

Estimates below were taken from the GARM III report. The estimates shown here reflect the
difference between MRFSS categories A+B1+B2 and A+B1.
GOM Cod
The survival of released recreational cod is assumed to be 100%. This number is a source of
uncertainty and it was recommended in the GARM III that it receive confirmation in future
assessments. Recreational discards in the time series ranged from 468 mt in 1992 to 4568 in 2003,
and generally accounted for a greater percentage of total catch in later years.
Figure 107 – GOM Cod Recreational Catch and Recreational Discards (mt), 1989-2007

8000
7000
6000
5000
Total Catch
Discards

4000
3000
2000
1000

07
20

05
20

03
20

99
19

97
19

95
19

93
19

91
19

GOM Haddock
Gulf of Maine haddock recreational landings were obtained from the Marine Recreational
Fisheries Statistics Survey (MRFSS), and are presented in numbers of fish. There was assumed
100% survival of recreational live releases. MRFSS data are available from 1981 onward.
Historically, recreational landings have been a minor component of overall fishery removals,
though over the past five years recreational landings have averaged less than 500 mt. In the past
four years, landings were significantly greater than live releases.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

461

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery
Figure 108 – GOM Haddock Recreational Landings and Live Releases (mt), 1989-2007 in numbers of
fish

500000
450000
400000
350000
300000
Landings
Live Releases

250000
200000
150000
100000
50000

07
20

05
20

01
20

99
19

97
19

95
19

93
19

91
19

GOM Winter Flounder
Discards are presented in numbers of fish, and a discard mortality of 15% was assumed for
recreational discards. Discard losses peaked in 1982 at 140,000 fish. Discards have since declined
to 4,000 fish in 2007. Since 1997, irregular sampling of the recreational fisheries by state fisheries
agencies has indicated that the discard is usually of fish below the minimum landing size of 12
inches (30 cm). For 1989-2007, the recreational discard has been assumed to have the same
length frequency as the catch in the MDMF survey below the legal size and above an assumed
hookable fish size (13 cm).

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

462

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery
Figure 109 – GOM Winter Flounder Recreational Discards and Recreational Discard Mortality
(thousands of fish), 1989-2007

350
300
250
200

Released
Discard Mortality

150
100
50

07
20

05
20

03
20

01
20

99
19

97
19

95
19

93
19

91
19

SNEMA Winter Flounder
Discards are presented in numbers of fish. Discards have generally declined throughout the time
series and reached a low in 2007 of 11,000 fish. Since 1997, irregular sampling of the recreational
fisheries by state fisheries agencies has indicated that the discard is usually of fish below the
minimum landing size of 12 inches (30 cm). For 2002-2007, discard length samples from the
NYDEC sampling of the recreational party-boat fishery and from the CTDEP Volunteer Angling
Survey (VAS) have been used to better characterize the recreational fishery discard. A discard
mortality rate of 15% was applied to recreational live discard estimates.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

463

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery
Figure 110 – SNE/MA Winter Flounder Recreational Discards and Recreational Discard Mortality
(thousands of fish), 1989-2007

60
50
40
Released
Discard Mortality

30
20
10

01
20

97
19

95
19

91
19

89
19

Pollock
Recreational catch and recreational discards of pollock from Statistical Areas 5 and 6 are
presented in metric tons. Discards generally comprised roughly half of the total catch, with a high
of 1275 mt discarded in 2001 and a low of 47 in 1992.
Figure 111 – Recreational Pollock Catch and Discards (mt), 1989-2007

2500

2000
1500
Recreational Catch
Recreational Discards
1000
500

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

464

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery

6.2.8 Communities
6.2.8.1

Overview

National Standard 8 requires the consideration of impacts on fishery dependent communities,
where a fishing community is “a community which is substantially dependent on or substantially
engaged in the harvesting or processing of fishery resources to meet social and economic needs,
and includes fishing vessel owners, operators, and crew and United States fish processors that are
based in such community.” Current guidance on National Standard 8 specifies that communities
are place-based: geographic units such as towns and cities that might fit the Census Bureau's
definition of a “place.” But actual methodological guidelines are still in the process of refinement
and resources have not been directed towards the systematic and long-term collection of the kinds
of baseline data needed to make such determinations in an empirically grounded way. For
example, the weigh-out data and the permit files document landing and home ports, but these are
not necessarily the same places where people live, where specific styles of and knowledge about
fishing are practiced, or where the impacts of management are most strongly felt. It is important
to note that fishing communities are not bounded or separated from the commerce and
institutional apparatus of the larger cities and towns in which they are located. In fact, most
fishing communities rely on a rather complicated network of business and social ties that extend
well beyond the boundaries of their communities and often into other communities in the region.
In terms of the keywords “substantially dependent” and “substantially engaged,” some have
suggested, for example, that "substantial dependence" be measured in terms similar to the U.S.
Department of Agriculture’s criteria for determining whether rural communities are dependent on
agriculture or logging. The Economic Research Service of the USDA, for example, classifies
counties as farming dependent given a certain percentage of economic activity, in this case labor
and proprietor income. Some of the sources of data to consider in making determinations of
fishing dependence are thus supplied in current guidance, such as landings information or
numbers of participants, and the socio-cultural importance of the fishery. With respect to
determining whether a community is "substantially engaged" in the harvesting or processing of a
fishery, existing guidance does not provide clear criteria. While the application of a percentage of
economic income activity may be an appropriate way to determine "substantial dependence",
there may be other valid criteria for determining "substantial dependence." For example, it could
be based on some minimum absolute level of activity (such as landings, number of vessels, etc.),
or the presence of particular type of infrastructure (auctions, co-ops, state fish piers), or level of
fishing activity (revenues, landings in weight, time spent fishing) that indicate a community is
"substantially engaged" in fishing. This approach was used in Amendment 13 to identify fishing
communities that are "substantially engaged" in fishing.
The Amendment 13 Affected Human Environment and the SIA also discuss ports and groups
based on gear or other characteristics in order to meet the requirements of the fishery impact
statements to examine the impacts to all the individuals, communities, and other groups that
participate in the fishery. However, assessment of the impacts of the measures proposed in this
action includes not only those communities that meet the strict interpretation of fishing
communities, but also other ports or port groups that will certainly experience impacts from the
alternatives beings considered Not all of these port groups necessarily meet the legal definition of
a fishing community as promulgated through National Standard 8, which can be considered a
subset of the broader ports and groups involved in the groundfish fishery. The Northeast Region
has begun to make some headway in collecting the kinds of information and performing the kinds
of analyses to support National Standard 8 determinations, most notably the Marine Fisheries
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

465

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery

Initiative (MARFIN) project on fishing communities and fishing dependency in New England
(Hall-Arber, et. al 2001) and an updated port-profiles report for the Mid-Atlantic (McCay and
Cieri, 2000). While some of these efforts include discussions of communities at larger levels than
a “place,” they still usefully provide context and background for understanding the impacts that
fishing communities defined by National Standard 8 might experience. However, they do not
identify all the fishing dependent communities that may require action under National Standard 8,
an exercise that is still in progress.
In Amendment 13, coastal communities throughout the Northeast region were organized into
primary and secondary port groups based on participation in the groundfish fishery since the
1994 fishing year. The port groups were assembled in such a way that additional information
about them can be obtained by cross-referencing information about the sub-regions in the
MARFIN Report. The port groups identified in Amendment 13 are essentially subsets of the subregions identified in the MARFIN Report. Since social and demographic statistics are often
compiled at the county level, the port groups are divided by county or adjacent counties,
depending on how the MARFIN sub-regions are structured, so that county-level data may be used
to characterize changes in these communities and ports.
The port groups are separated into primary and secondary groups. Primary groups are those
communities that are substantially engaged in the groundfish fishery, as explained above, and
which are likely to be the most impacted by groundfish management measures. Secondary
groups are those communities that may not be substantially dependent or engaged in the
groundfish fishery, but have demonstrated some participation in the groundfish fishery since the
1994 fishing year (FY94). Because of the size and diversity of the groundfish fishery, it is not
practical to examine each secondary port individually, which is why most secondary ports are
grouped with others in the same county or in geographically adjacent counties.
To identify primary and secondary port groups, groundfish landings by port were examined for
the time period 1994-1999 from the dealer weighout database. Primary port groups represent the
most active ports (currently) in the groundfish fishery and were selected based on groundfish
landings greater than one million pounds annually since 1994 and/or the presence of significant
groundfish infrastructure (auctions and co-ops, for example). In Amendment 13 and in the
absence of specific guidance, these ports are considered fishing communities (as defined by the
MSFCMA) because they have demonstrated a continued substantial engagement in fishing, here
in particular the groundfish fishery. Secondary port groups consist of groups of ports in which
some level of groundfish activity has been observed since 1994. This approach provides a way to
consider the impacts of management measures on every port in which some amount of groundfish
has been landed since 1994, and identifies some as fishing communities (as defined by NS8)
based on substantial engagement. Though the analysis does not identify those fishing
communities that meet the "substantial dependence" criteria, it is unlikely that the analysis misses
any port which may be a fishing community based on the substantial dependence criteria because
the impacts of the amendment are considered on nearly every port that has groundfish activity,
It is important to remember that because significant geographical shifts in the distribution of
groundfish fishing activity have occurred the characterization of some ports as primary or
secondary ports may not reflect their historical participation in and dependence on the groundfish
fishery. A good example is Rockland, Maine. Historically, Rockland would have been considered
a primary groundfish port, landing large quantities of redfish, flounders, and other groundfish,
and serving as an important groundfish processing port, and would have met the test for
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

466

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery

"substantial engagement." In recent years, however (since the establishment of the Hague Line in
1984 and the decline of groundfish stocks in the early 1990s), fishing activity in Rockland has
shifted from groundfish to other species like lobster and herring. This also reflects the apparent
concentration of the groundfish fishery around Portland, Maine and the loss of the fishery to
many coastal communities in northern Maine. Since FW 42, shifts have continued and groundfish
fishing activity has become increasingly concentrated in fewer ports.
The outline below lists the Amendment 13 primary and secondary port groups. Additional
information about each of these groups appears in Amendment 13, with a brief discussion
repeated following the outline. Primary multispecies ports are considered fishing communities
under NS8.

DOWNEAST MAINE – WASHINGTON COUNTY

Primary Multispecies Port
1.
None
Secondary Multispecies Ports
1.
Downeast Maine: Jonesport, West Jonesport, Beals Island, Milbridge,
Machias, Eastport, and Dyers Bay

II.
UPPER MID-COAST MAINE – HANCOCK, WALDO, AND KNOX
COUNTIES
A.
B.

Primary Multispecies Ports
1.
None
Secondary Multispecies Communities
1.
Upper Mid-Coast 1: Rockland, Port Clyde, Sprucehead, Owls Head,
Friendship, Friendship Harbor, Camden, and Vinalhaven
2.
Upper Mid-Coast 2: Stonington and Sunshine/Deer Isle
3.
Upper Mid-Coast 3: Winter Harbor, Southwest Harbor, Bar Harbor,
Northeast Harbor, and Northwest Harbor

III.
LOWER MID-COAST MAINE – LINCOLN, SAGADAHOC, AND
CUMBERLAND COUNTIES
A.
B.

Primary Multispecies Ports
1.
Portland
Secondary Multispecies Ports
1.
Lower Mid-Coast 1: New Harbor, Bristol, South Bristol, Boothbay
Harbor, East Boothbay, Medomak, Southport, and Westport
2.
Lower Mid-Coast 2: Cundys Harbor, Orrs Island, Yarmouth, Harpswell,
East Harpswell, South Harpswell, Bailey Island, and Cape Elizabeth
3.
Lower Mid-Coast 3: Sebasco Estates, Small Point, West Point, Five
Islands, and Phippsburg

IV.

SOUTHERN MAINE – YORK COUNTY

Primary Multispecies Ports
1.
None
Secondary Multispecies Ports

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

467

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery

1.
Southern Maine: York, York Harbor, Camp Ellis, Kennebunkport,
Kittery, Cape Porpoise, Ogunquit, Saco, and Wells
V.

OTHER MAINE – all other coastal Ports in Maine

VI.
STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE – ROCKINGHAM AND STRAFFORD
COUNTIES
A.
B.

Primary Multispecies Ports
1.
Portsmouth
Secondary Multispecies Ports
1.
NH Seacoast: Rye, Hampton/Seabrook, Hampton, and Seabrook

VII.

OTHER NEW HAMPSHIRE – all other coastal Ports in New Hampshire

VIII.

GLOUCESTER AND NORTH SHORE – ESSEX COUNTY

Primary Multispecies Ports
1.
Gloucester
Secondary Multispecies Ports
1.
The North Shore: Rockport, Newburyport, Beverly/Salem, Beverly,
Salem, Marblehead, Manchester, and Swampscott

IX.
BOSTON AND SOUTH SHORE – MIDDLESEX, SUFFOLK, NORFOLK,
AND PLYMOUTH COUNTIES
A.
B.

Primary Multispecies Ports
1.
Boston
Secondary Multispecies Ports
1.
The South Shore: Scituate, Plymouth, and Marshfield (Green Harbor)

X.
CAPE AND ISLANDS – BARNSTABLE, DUKES, AND NANTUCKET
COUNTIES
A.
B.

Primary Multispecies Ports
1.
Chatham/Harwichport
Secondary Multispecies Ports
1.
Provincetown
2.
Other Cape Cod: Sandwich, Barnstable, Wellfleet, Woods Hole,
Yarmouth, Orleans, and Eastham
3.
The Islands: Nantucket, Oak Bluffs, Tisbury, and Edgartown

XI.

NEW BEDFORD COAST – BRISTOL COUNTY

Primary Multispecies Ports
1.
New Bedford/Fairhaven
Secondary Multispecies Ports
1.
Other Bristol County: Dartmouth, and Westport

B.
XII.

OTHER MASSACHUSETTS – all other coastal Ports in Massachusetts

XIII. STATE OF RHODE ISLAND – WASHINGTON AND NEWPORT
COUNTIES
A.

Primary Multispecies Ports

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

468

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery

XIV.

1.
Point Judith
Secondary Multispecies Ports
1.
Western RI: Charlestown, Westerly, South Kingstown (Wakefield), and
North Kingstown (Wickford)
2.
Eastern RI: Newport, Tiverton, Portsmouth, Jamestown, Middletown,
and Little Compton
OTHER RHODE ISLAND – all other coastal Ports in Rhode Island

XV.
STATE OF CONNECTICUT – NEW LONDON, MIDDLESEX, NEW
HAVEN, AND FAIRFIELD COUNTIES

Primary Multispecies Ports
1.
None
Secondary Multispecies Ports
1.
Coastal CT: Stonington, New London, Noank, Lyme, Old Lyme, East
Lyme, Groton, and Waterford

XVI.

OTHER CONNECTICUT – all other coastal Ports in Connecticut

XVII. LONG ISLAND, NEW YORK – SUFFOLK, NASSAU, QUEENS, AND
KINGS COUNTIES
A.

Primary Multispecies Ports
1.
Eastern Long Island: Montauk, Hampton Bay, Shinnecock, and
Greenport
Secondary Multispecies Ports
1.
Other Long Island: Mattituck, Islip, Freeport, Brooklyn, Other Nassau
County, and Other Suffolk County

XVIII. OTHER NEW YORK – all other coastal Ports in New York
XIX. NORTHERN COASTAL NEW JERSEY – MONMOUTH AND OCEAN
COUNTIES
A.
B.

Primary Multispecies Ports
1.
None
Secondary Multispecies Ports
1.
Northern Coastal NJ: Point Pleasant, Belford, Long Beach/Barnegat
Light, Barnegat, Highlands, Belmar, Sea Bright, and Manasquan

XX.
SOUTHERN COASTAL NEW JERSEY – ATLANTIC AND CAPE MAY
COUNTIES

Primary Multispecies Ports
1.
None
Secondary Multispecies Ports
1.
Southern Coastal NJ: Cape May, Wildwood, Burleigh, Sea Isle City,
Ocean City, Stone Harbor, and Avalon

XXI.

OTHER NEW JERSEY – all other coastal Ports in New Jersey

XXII. DELAWARE
XXIII. MARYLAND
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

469

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery

XXIV. VIRGINIA
XXV. NORTH CAROLINA

6.2.8.2

Port Group Characterizations

Information in this section is largely based on recent fishing data, “Community Profiles for the
Northeast U.S. Fisheries from the Northeast Fisheries Science Center” (available at
http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/read/socialsci/community_profiles/), and Amendment 13 social
impact community information meetings. Similar meetings were not convened for this
Amendment, but issues identified for the previous Amendment are likely to remain applicable.
For additional information and references, refer to the NEFSC document and Amendment 13.
Portland, Maine: According to Census 2000 data, Portland has a population 64,249, which is a
0.2% decrease from the year 1990. In FY07, 75 vessels landed 7,022,856 lbs. of groundfish in
Portland, down from 111 vessels that landed 17,127,475 lbs. in FY04. The total value of
groundfish caught in FY07 was approximately $6.5 million. Although the numbers have been
diminishing, Portland is still an important port of landing for groundfish vessels and a primary
port for the multispecies fishery. The community of Portland is also substantially dependent on
groundfish for a significant portion of its total fisheries revenues. More than 64% of Portland’s
total fisheries revenues from federally-permitted vessels came from groundfish in FY07. While
these data reflect the community’s relative dependence on the groundfish fishery, it is important
to remember that at least some of the individual groundfish vessels in Portland are even more
than 64% dependent on the multispecies fishery. Vessel-level impacts of the Amendment 16
measures, therefore, will vary.
Media attention has focused on the impacts of Amendment 13 and FW 42 on the fishermen of
Portland and surrounding fishing communities. Amendment 13 limited fishermen’s Days at Sea
throughout the Northeast, but Maine fishermen feel they were put at more of a disadvantage than
Southern New England because Maine is farther from George’s Bank, which requires fishermen
to use more of their allowed Days at Sea for travel rather than fishing. Another issue in
newspapers during this same time period is the question of how Portland’s land-based fishing
industry infrastructure will remain in business if landings become more sporadic. For example, if
the Portland Fish Exchange were to go out of business, fishermen would have to travel to other
large ports to sell their landings. To avoid this disaster, the federal government implemented a
program to keep the Fish Exchange afloat during the current strict groundfish regulations. The
main issue of worry for the fishing community in Portland and other towns in Maine is whether
the fishing infrastructure can be maintained as Days at Sea and catches are limited. Most recently,
there has been concern that herring fishing is threatening groundfish stocks.
At the Amendment 13 social impact informational meeting in Portland, residents of Portland
reported having experienced the most significant social impacts from DAS reductions in earlier
Amendments. Many of Portland’s active groundfish vessels possess Individual DAS permits and
had experienced a 50% reduction in their Individual DAS. Moreover, most Individual DAS
vessels use the majority of their allocated DAS. The measures proposed in Amendment 16 that
are likely to impact this community the most are those that modify or further reduce DAS
allocations. However, because Portland is such a large and important groundfish port, and
because of its location, it is likely that most measures proposed in Amendment 16 will affect this
community.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

470

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery

Portsmouth, New Hampshire: Portsmouth had a population of 20,784 at the time of the 2000
U.S. Census, which was a decrease from 25,925 in the previous 1990 Census. Nineteen vessels
landed groundfish in Portsmouth in 2007, down from 41 in 2004. In FY04, Portsmouth had
1,604,137 pounds of groundfish landings and $1,372,199 in groundfish revenues. In FY07, those
numbers decreased to 539,957 lbs. and $363,121 in revenues. The community of Portsmouth is
dependent on the groundfish fishery for a significant portion of its total fisheries revenues. In
FY99 and FY00, Portsmouth’s dependence on groundfish for its total fisheries revenues from
federally-permitted vessels averaged about 23%, but in previous years the dependence was higher
(36% in FY06). While these data reflect the community’s relative dependence on the groundfish
fishery, it is important to remember that at least some of the individual groundfish vessels in
Portsmouth are even more than 23% dependent on the multispecies fishery. Vessel-level impacts
of the Amendment 16 measures, therefore, will vary.
Not unlike most fishing communities, Portsmouth fishermen are concerned that their livelihood is
dependent on regulations that they believe are overly stringent. In September of 2007, the
Portsmouth Co-op closed its doors. According to the President of the New Hampshire
Commercial Fishermen’s Association, “The current groundfish management regulations of
Amendment 13 and more recently Framework 42 overwhelmed its ability to function as it had for
over 30 years.” Many residents stated their frustration with high property taxes in the town and
high real estate prices. Some residents say the town is losing its small town atmosphere and
parking has become a big issue in the downtown area. Some residents are also concerned that
new buildings and development is engulfing the historic buildings along the main streets in
downtown. The city recognizes these issues, and has developed a master plan aimed at
revitalizing the city in a comprehensive manner.
At the Amendment 13 social impact informational meeting in Portsmouth, residents of
Portsmouth and the NH Seacoast reported that they have experienced the most significant social
impacts from the Gulf of Maine inshore area closures and the low Gulf of Maine cod trip limits.
The measures proposed in Amendment 16 that are likely to impact this community the most,
either positively or negatively, are those that modify inshore Gulf of Maine area closures, the
Gulf of Maine cod trip limit, and differential DAS counting in the Gulf of Maine. However,
depending on the alternative selected, other measures have the potential to significantly affect this
community (for example, large-scale DAS reductions).
Gloucester, Massachusetts: Gloucester had a population of 30,273 according to the U.S. Census
2000, which was an increase of 5.4% from 1990. In FY04, Gloucester saw 13,755,265 pounds of
groundfish landings and $14,306,231in groundfish revenues. In 2007, those numbers increased to
18,852,948 pounds and $18,159,498 in revenues. The significant amount of landings and
revenues as well as the importance of the Gloucester Seafood Display Auction and other
shoreside facilities indicate that Gloucester is an important port of landing for multispecies
vessels and a primary port for the multispecies fishery. In FY07, 166 vessels homeported in
Gloucester caught groundfish, down from 202 in FY04. Vessel-level impacts of the Amendment
16 measures will vary.
As regulations tighten, fishermen have been concerned that they will go out of business. It is
interesting, however, that Gloucester has gained some business from Maine vessels which land
here due to tightening restrictions at the statewide level in Maine. Fishermen and
environmentalists in the Gloucester area have been heavily opposed to the development of two
offshore LNG facilities near Gloucester. The facilities require fishermen to avoid a large area for
security reasons, restricting some important fishing grounds and causing vessels to have to steam
longer to get around the closed areas. Environmentalists have been concerned about the effect the
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

471

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery

ship traffic may have on endangered right whales inhabiting the area. In December 2006, $6.3
million was provided to the Gloucester Fishing Community Preservation Fund as part of a $12.6
million mitigation package for the LNG terminal being built off the coastline. These funds will be
used to buy fishing permits from local fishermen who wish to leave the industry, and lease the
DAS on those permits to others.
At the Amendment 13 social impact informational meeting in Gloucester, residents of Gloucester
reported that they have experienced the most significant social impacts from the Gulf of Maine
area closures, both year-round and seasonal. Therefore, the measures proposed in Amendment 16
that are likely to impact this community the most, either positively or negatively, are those that
modify access to the Gulf of Maine, including differential days at sea counting. However,
because Gloucester is such an important groundfish port and because of its location, it is likely
that most measures in Amendment 16 will impact this community. Large-scale DAS reductions
will undoubtedly have significant impacts on this port.
Boston, Massachusetts: Boston had a population of 589,141 in 2000, which was a 2.6% increase
from the 1990 U.S. Census. The number of federally-permitted vessels landing groundfish in
Boston is actually increasing slightly, from 24 in FY04 to 30 in FY07. In FY04, Boston
experienced 3,846,639 pounds of groundfish landings and $3,947,175 in groundfish revenues. In
FY07, these numbers increased to 6,876,819 pounds of landings and $6,363,534 in revenues.
These landings as well as the historical importance of Boston as a provider of fishing-related
support services for smaller communities indicate that Boston is an important primary
community. In FY07, 72% of total revenues from multispecies vessels landing in Boston came
from groundfish. While these data reflect the community’s relative dependence on the groundfish
fishery, it is important to remember that at least some of the individual groundfish vessels in
Boston are even more than 72% dependent on the multispecies fishery. Vessel-level impacts of
the Amendment 16 measures, therefore, will vary.
The high cost of real estate in Boston means that fishermen and other maritime users of
waterfront areas are face displacement issues. Groups such as the Boston Harbor Association are
working to prevent this from happening. There are now only two areas for commercial fishermen
to tie-up and unload their catch – Boston Fish Pier and the Cardinal Medeiros docks (Medeiros
dock is used almost exclusively by lobstermen) – and limited options for containers and bulk
cargo handling. Due to redevelopment, much of the working waterfront has been lost to the
construction of condos, office buildings, hotels, and other non-marine related businesses. The
Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) filed suit against the Massachusetts Port Authority
(Massport) in 2004, for failing to maintain the Boston Fish Pier (which they had recently
purchased) as a working commercial pier. The Pier is in need of repair and the businesses relying
on the pier have not been issued long-term leases. The pier recently underwent a massive
construction project, including replacing its barrier walls. Also, the Massachusetts Division of
Marine Fisheries (MADMF) proposed in 2004 to shut down a section of Massachusetts Bay
extending from Boston north to Marblehead to cod fishing, in order to protect prime spawning
ground. This proposal caused much concern for fishermen in the area, already severely limited by
restrictions on cod fishing. The MADMF not only proposed the Cod Closure Zone, but it has
been enacted each subsequent year to protect spawning cod. The MADMF conducts directed
research on these activities and there are indicators that this area may help support the largest
remaining aggregation of spawning cod in the Gulf of Maine.
At the Amendment 13 social impact informational meeting in Boston, participants reported that
they had experienced the most significant social impacts from the Amendment 5/7 DAS
reductions. Many of Boston’s active groundfish vessels possess Individual DAS permits and had
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

472

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery

experienced a 50% reduction in their Individual DAS from those measures. Moreover, most
Individual DAS vessels use the majority of their allocated DAS. The measures proposed in
Amendment 16 that are likely to impact this community the most are those that modify or reduce
DAS allocations and those that change the ways that DAS are counted.
Chatham/Harwichport, Massachusetts: According to Census 2000 data, Chatham had a total
population of 1,667, down 12.9% from the reported population of 1,916 in 1990. Harwichport
had a 2000 population of 1,809, up 3.8% from a reported population of 1,742 in 1990. In FY07,
Chatham and Harwichport had 1,950,982 pounds of groundfish landings and $2,583,334 in
groundfish revenues, establishing it as an important port of landing for groundfish vessels and a
primary port for the multispecies fishery. Those numbers had decreased from 2,742,502 pounds
of groundfish and $3,422,921 in revenues in FY04. Chatham and Harwichport also serve as
homeports for a significant number of multispecies vessels. In FY04, 126 multispecies vessels
landed groundfish in Chatham/Harwichport, although that number declined to 57 in FY07.
Groundfish revenues accounted from 31% of total revenues by multispecies vessels in FY07. It is
likely that at least some of the active groundfish vessels in Chatham and Harwichport are even
more than 71% dependent on the multispecies fishery.
Information gathered during a visit to the Cape Cod Commercial Hook Fishermen’s Association
(CCCHFA) in 2004 revealed that the fishing industry in Chatham faces similar challenges to
other fishing port communities in the Northeast. With tourism and the increase of gentrification,
the fishing industry is threatened by a lack of mooring space and the threat of land-based fishing
infrastructure closing down. At the same time many believe that the history of fishing has been a
large part of the allure that draws tourists to Chatham, so it could lose its cultural appeal if the
fisheries really did fade away. With a group such as the CCCHFA, the fishermen appear to be
fighting the challenges of stricter catch regulations and decreased catches by finding alternative
ways to keep their fishing industry alive. There are a significant number of people directly
involved in small-boat fishing in Harwichport. In addition to the fishermen, the local fleet
supports baiters, boatyards, shopkeepers, gear suppliers and repairers, fuel suppliers, fish markets,
consumers, marine insurance agents, etc. Restrictions on the local fleet affect all of Harwich,
either directly or indirectly. Harwich is an area without many other identifiable industries
operating all year. There is little besides tourism and fishing to support the local economy.
Unemployment has continued to be a problem during Cape Cod winters, and strict regulations
exacerbate this in addition to social distress. Despite an external appearance of wealth, some
residents of Harwich experience economic and social suffering due to stringent fishing
regulations. The Cape Cod Regional Economic Development Council (CCREDC) has not
recognized the importance of commercial fishing on Cape Cod, however; they rely on census data
which hides fishermen’s incomes in the self employment and agricultural categories. Melissa
Weidman of CCCHFA estimated that there are 10,000 fishermen on Cape Cod, while the
CCREDC reported only 50 fishermen. One example of an important business to fishing in
Chatham is Cape Fish Supply. It is the biggest supplier for the entire Cape. People come here
from Provincetown with the next biggest supplier in New Bedford. The CCCHFA recently
initiated a project to purchase groundfish permits to preserve community access sot the fishery.
At the Amendment 13 social impact informational meeting in Chatham, a few residents of
Chatham and Harwichport submitted comments reporting that they have experienced the most
significant social impacts from the May closure on Georges Bank to protect cod. The majority of
multispecies vessels from Chatham/Harwichport fish for Georges Bank cod and not Gulf of
Maine cod. Some of the measures proposed in Amendment 13 that are likely to impact this
community group the most are those that modify or add nearshore area closures on Georges Bank
and those that modify the Georges Bank cod trip limit.
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

473

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery

New Bedford/Fairhaven, Massachusetts: In 2000, New Bedford had a population of 93,768 (a
6.2% decrease from the population of 99,922 in 1990), and Fairhaven had a population of 16,159
(a 0.2% increase from the population of 16,132 in 1990). In FY04, New Bedford and Fairhaven
averaged 31,339,886 pounds of groundfish landings and $25,722,137 in groundfish revenues,
establishing it as an important port of landing for groundfish vessels and a primary port for the
multispecies fishery. However, in FY07 those numbers decreased to 15,150,104 pounds and
$19,828,362 in revenues. New Bedford/Fairhaven is also an important port of landing for scallop
vessels, and its dependence on the scallop fishery for revenues reduces its overall dependence on
the multispecies fishery, although many individual vessels may be more dependent on groundfish.
In FY07, 156 vessels landed groundfish in the port, down from 211 in FY04. Despite these high
numbers, New Bedford/Fairhaven’s community dependence on groundfish is relatively low
compared to other communities of interest, averaging 9% for FY07. It is likely, however, that at
least some of the active groundfish vessels in New Bedford and Fairhaven are more than 9%
dependent on the multispecies fishery.
The data suggest that from a community-impact perspective, impacts from the measures in
Amendment 16 may be less significant in New Bedford/Fairhaven because the community is less
dependent on groundfish for its overall fisheries revenues and because some impacted vessels
may have the ability to offset losses in groundfish revenues with revenues from other fisheries. In
addition, the multispecies vessels in New Bedford/Fairhaven are significantly larger than
multispecies vessels in many other communities, so they may be more suited to adapt to some
measures (for example, area closures or differential DAS areas) by shifting to different fishing
areas or changing their fishing practices. However, because they tend to fish offshore on multiday trips, they could be more impacted by trip limits and DAS reductions. The vessel level
impacts of the Amendment 16 measures will vary. However, the measures that are likely to
impact this community the most are those that modify or further reduce DAS allocations and
those that change the ways that DAS are counted.
Another issue in New Bedford is in regard to fishing crew members. According to a 2002
newspaper article, fishing vessel owners complain of a shortage of crewmen. They attribute this
scarcity to low unemployment rates that have kept laborers from the docks. Many choose to
bypass work that government statistics place among the most dangerous jobs in the country.
Many crewmembers are either inexperienced or come from foreign countries. Both present safety
issues, according to one fisherman, because inexperienced crew get hurt more often and foreign
crew have significant language barriers that impede communication. Additionally, the article
noted, those willing to work sometimes struggle with alcohol and drug dependency. However, a
community member and former fisherman commented that this is not normal procedure; most of
the drug problems in the city come from crew members on out-of-town boats. He also noted that
with a decrease in days at sea vessels are allowed to fish, crew members have been more steady,
most working on more than one vessel owned by a single owner.
Point Judith, Rhode Island: Point Judith is considered a village in the town of Narragansett and
does not have any census data as it is not incorporated on its own. It is also not a residential town,
and fishermen working out of the port live in surrounding communities and all across Rhode
Island. Narragansett had a population of 16,361 in 2000, up 9.2% from a reported population of
14,985 in 1990. In FY07, Point Judith had 1,988,119 pounds of groundfish landings and
$2,890,548 in groundfish revenues. This represented about 14% of Point Judith’s total revenues
from multispecies vessels. Groundfish landings and revenues in this community have increased
considerably since the 1994 fishing year, suggesting that Point Judith is becoming a more
important port of landing for multispecies vessels. In FY04, the port had 1,685,393 pounds of
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

474

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery

groundfish landings and $1,425,630 in revenues. In FY07, 75 vessels landed groundfish in Point
Judith, which was only a slight decrease from the 81 vessels that landed there in FY04. Similar to
New Bedford, the data suggest that from a community-impact perspective, the impacts of the
measures in Amendment 16 may be less significant in Point Judith because the community is less
dependent on groundfish for its overall fisheries revenues and because impacted vessels may have
the ability to offset losses in groundfish revenues with revenues from other fisheries. Many of
Point Judith’s vessels are actively involved in fisheries in the Mid-Atlantic region (squid, fluke,
etc.). However, increasing reliance on groundfish in recent years suggests that vessels may have
more difficulty shifting effort as restrictions in these other fisheries increase and opportunities
decrease. In addition, on an individual-vessel basis, impacts may be more severe. It is likely that
at least some of the active groundfish vessels in Point Judith are more than 14% dependent on the
multispecies fishery.
Not unlike many fishing communities in the Northeast, increasingly stringent state and federal
fishing regulations could jeopardize the viability of Point Judith as a fishing port, affecting both
commercial and recreational fishermen. In addition to affecting the fishermen directly, Point
Judith processing companies have difficulty handling drastic variations in landings, commonly
due to the lifting or expanding of quotas, as well as sudden changes in what species are landed. It
is also important to note that Point Judith fishermen harvest species managed by both the New
England Fishery Management Council and the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, which
increases the level of management measures they must follow. Additionally, the boom in tourism
at Point Judith has had an adverse effect on the commercial fishing industry. Not only do
fishermen battle parking issues but shore front rents for fish processing companies and the cost of
dockage and wharfage for vessels have increased.
At the Amendment 13 social impact informational meeting in Point Judith, residents reported that
they have experienced the most significant social impacts from gear restrictions and DAS
reductions. Gear restrictions were cited compromising the ability to plan a business and
ultimately costing everyone affected by the regulation more money. The measures proposed in
Amendment 16 that are likely to impact this community the most are gear restrictions and
modifications to and/or further reductions in DAS. DAS reductions may affect Point Judith
vessels the most by compromising their ability to fish for groundfish as an alternative for other
fisheries.
Eastern Long Island, New York: This region is made up of several communities. Among them,
in the year 2000 the Township of Southold had a population of 20,599, Hampton Bays had
12,236, Mattituck had a population of 4,198, and Montauk had 3,851. The populations in each
area had generally increased since the 1990 Census, including a 55% increase in Hampton Bays.
In FY07, Eastern Long Island experienced 456,849 pounds of groundfish landings and $657,784
in groundfish revenues. Groundfish landings and revenues in this community group had increased
considerably since the 2004 fishing year (which had 337,261 pounds of groundfish landings and
$363,029 in revenue) suggesting that Eastern Long Island communities are becoming more
important ports of landing for multispecies vessels. However, the amount of landings and
revenues are highly variable each year, so it is difficult to determine an absolute trend. The
number of permitted vessels landing groundfish in the area is decreasing, from 87 permits in
FY04 to 74 in FY07. Eastern Long Island’s dependence on multispecies revenues for its total
fisheries revenues from federally-permitted vessels is also variable, with 4.7% in 2007. It is likely
that at least some of the active groundfish vessels in Eastern Long Island are more than 4.7%
dependent on the multispecies fishery. Similar to New Bedford and Point Judith, however, from a
community-impact perspective, impacts from the measures in Amendment 16 may be less
significant in Eastern Long Island than in other communities because this area is less dependent
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

475

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery

on groundfish for its total fisheries revenues and because impacted vessels may have the ability to
offset losses in groundfish revenues with revenues from other fisheries. Also, most of the
multispecies vessels homeported in Eastern Long Island are not using all of their DAS. However,
increasing reliance on groundfish in recent years suggests that vessels in Eastern Long Island may
have more difficulty shifting effort as restrictions in other fisheries increase and opportunities
decrease.
The population of Eastern Long Island has been growing steadily, and a number of seasonal home
owners are choosing to live here year round. This is changing the population structure and
dynamics of the region, and is likely to cause house prices to increase in an area where
affordability is already a problem. The area around Shinnecock Inlet is one where much growth is
expected to occur. As in many other coastal communities with a fishing industry, the soaring
costs of waterfront property make it very difficult for fishermen and others in the industry to
afford or retain necessary waterfront property for water access. Most of the infrastructure at
Shinnecock has disappeared in the last few years; where there were at one time three docks for
commercial fishermen to pack out at, now only one remains. Many commercial fishermen from
Greenport have gone out of business entirely in recent years, and have difficulty finding decent
jobs after they leave, because of a lack of other marketable skills. Few children of fishermen are
choosing to pursue this career. The town of Southold has instituted a program to assist its
residents with rising housing costs. It is estimated that the Hispanic population in Greenport (and
elsewhere on Long Island) is much greater than what census data indicate, due to the likely
presence of illegal immigrants. In recent years some vessels have been repossessed, which
signifies a great change in a fishery where there was always money to be made at one time. The
rest of the fleet is aging badly, but fishermen cannot afford new vessels.
At the A13 social impact informational meeting in Riverhead, residents of Eastern Long Island
communities reported that they have experienced the most significant social impacts from
increased restrictions in fisheries other than groundfish. DAS were cited as providing flexibility
and opportunities for groundfish fishing when quotas for other fisheries closed or became too
restrictive. This is apparent in the increased landings for this community group as well as its
increased reliance on groundfish for its total fisheries revenues. Therefore, the measures proposed
in Amendment 16 that are likely to impact this community group the most are those that modify
or further reduce DAS allocations and those that change the ways that DAS are counted. In
addition, the alternatives to address capacity have the potential to significantly impact this
community group. The impacts of Amendment 16 will be significant to the extent that DAS
changes constrain vessels in Eastern Long Island from shifting effort onto groundfish and
increasing their DAS usage in response to regulations in other fisheries.
Upper Mid-Coast 1, Maine: This community group includes Rockland, Port Clyde, and
surrounding communities. According to Census 2000 data, Rockland City had a total population
of 7,609, down 4.6% from the reported population of 7,972 in 1990. Census data is not available
for Port Clyde, which is a village in the town of St. George. According to Census 2000 data, St.
George had a total population of 2,580, up 1.2% from the reported population of 2,261 in 1990.
Port Clyde is the primary groundfish fishing port of the region. Despite having 120 miles of
coastline, access to the waterfront is an ongoing issue throughout the town of St. George. There
are only five private and public facilities within the town dedicated to fishing, meaning that the
remaining 92% of access points are on private residences. Parking in Port Clyde and Tenants
Harbor by waterfront access areas is also very limited. Other fisheries such as herring and lobster
have played a larger role in Rockland’s economy than groundfish. However, the Rockland Fish
Pier provides open, public water access for participants in several fisheries. In 2006, the State of
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

476

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery

Maine passed the Working Waterfront Tax Law, to address the problem of working waterfront
property being heavily taxed based on its projected market value. The goal of this tax is “to
encourage the preservation of working waterfront land and to prevent the conversion of working
waterfront land to other uses as the result of economic pressures caused by the assessment of that
land for purposes of property taxation.” The law requires the tax assessor to value the property
based on what it is worth as working waterfront land, rather than what its market value would be
if it were sold and converted to residential or other uses. Fishermen in Port Clyde have recently
become active in developing a marketing niche and have expressed interest in forming a sector.
During the social impact informational meetings, some comments were received from Upper
Mid-Coast 1 community residents suggesting that DAS reductions since Amendment 5 have had
the most significant social impacts on them and their communities. It is difficult to predict which
Amendment 16 measures will most significantly impact this community group. Because of its
location and multispecies activity, it is likely to experience impacts from most of the Amendment
16 measures that address Gulf of Maine cod, including gear restrictions, modifications to area
closures, and particularly differential DAS counting in the Gulf of Maine. The alternatives to
address capacity are also likely to significantly impact this community group.
Lower Mid-Coast 1, Maine: This community group includes Bristol, Boothbay, and surrounding
communities. According to Census 2000 data, Boothbay Harbor had a total population of 2,334,
down 0.5% from the reported population of 2,365 in 1990. South Bristol had a total year 2000
population of 897, up 8.7% from the reported population of 825 in 1990.
This region faces similar issues to the Upper Mid-Coast Maine area: namely, the rising cost of
real estate and lack of access to coastal property. According to the Island Institute, out of over
5,000 miles of coastline in the state, only 20 miles are open to commercial fishermen. Also, most
of the access areas fishermen use are privately owned, meaning at any time those properties can
be sold and access denied to fishermen. While fishing in Maine brings over $700 million in
revenues, the competition from second home buyers and retired New Englanders may squeeze out
the state’s fishing culture and identity. The Working Waterfront Access Pilot Program and
Working Waterfront Tax Law established by Maine voters are implementing initiatives to combat
these problems. The unbalanced age structure in Boothbay Harbor is another concern.
Gentrification has resulted in higher priced houses, increased taxes, and fewer opportunities for
young people to make a living in the town. In 2005, the Boothbay Region Land Trust acquired a
1.9 acre parcel on Barters Island used by fishermen and lobstermen to store their gear. The dock
and pier located here need to be rebuilt, but this purchase assures waterfront access to the town’s
lobstermen and to other residents in the future. The Boothbay Region Land Trust also has
purchased Damariscove Island which it maintains for both the public and commercial fishing
access.
It is difficult to predict which Amendment 13 measures will substantially impact this community
group. Because of its location and multispecies activity, it is likely to experience impacts from
most of the Amendment 16 measures that address Gulf of Maine cod, including gear restrictions,
modifications to area closures, and particularly differential DAS counting in the Gulf of Maine.
The alternatives to address capacity are also likely to significantly impact this community group.
NH Seacoast: This community group includes Hampton, Rye, and Seabrook NH. According to
the Census 2000 data, Hampton had a population of 14,937, down 21.7% from the reported
population of 12,278 in 1990. Seabrook had a population of 7,934, up 22.0% from the reported
population of 6,503 in 1990. Rye had a total population of 5,182, down 0.1% from the reported
population of 5,188 in 1990.
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

477

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery

With the ever increasing need for Hampton to accommodate its growing tourism, the city has
proposed a new master plan that will change zoning. Currently, the commercial fishing industry is
in direct competition for waterfront access with residential and tourist uses. This has put a
significant restraint on commercial fishing operations from basic waterfront access needs to
parking and congestion. One current problem with regards to use by the commercial fishing
industry is increased crowding in the harbor with recreational vessels and jet skis, resulting in
conflicts and turning this into a safety issue.
At the Amendment 13 social impact informational meeting in Portsmouth, residents of
Portsmouth and the NH Seacoast reported that they have experienced the most significant social
impacts from the Gulf of Maine inshore area closures and the low Gulf of Maine cod trip limits.
The measures proposed in Amendment 16 that are likely to impact this community the most,
either positively or negatively, are those that modify inshore Gulf of Maine area closures, the
Gulf of Maine cod trip limit, and differential DAS counting in the Gulf of Maine. However,
depending on the alternative selected, other measures will significantly affect this community
group (for example, large-scale DAS reductions). Also, the Amendment 13 cod restrictions
pushed struggling fishermen to go after other species, like tuna, scallops or lobster. Fishermen
wondered if those species would be the next to be restricted. In addition, there was concern that
these restrictions may permanently destroy small local operations like the Yankee Fisherman's
Cooperative.
South Shore, Massachusetts: This community group includes Scituate, Plymouth, and
Marshfield, Massachusetts. According to Census 2000 data, Plymouth had a total population of
51,701, up 13.4% from the reported population of 45,608 in 1990. Marshfield had a total
population of 24,324, up 12.5% from the reported population of 21,621 in 1990. Scituate had a
total population of 17,863, up 6.4% from the reported population of 16,786 in 1990.
As noted above, the population of the town of Plymouth has grown by 145% over the last two
decades, encouraged by its proximity to Boston. This puts numerous demands on the municipality
to meet this growth with schools and other infrastructure. Plymouth’s Town Wharf, where the
commercial fishing fleet is stationed, was described in 2002 as in very poor condition and badly
in need of repair. It was temporarily closed in the winter of 2004, after having been found to be
structurally unsound; plans for a new wharf were being developed. The new plans involved
implementing a user fee for commercial fishermen and anyone else using the wharf to pay for the
proposed improvements; currently fishermen tying up to the dock to unload or get fuel and ice
pay no fee. Fishermen argue that the proposed fee structure could drive some of them out of
business. As of 2007, the pier has been repaired and has reopened. A 2004 report noted that the
Town Pier in Scituate, which is the only deep-water facility in town, was also run-down, and the
groundfish fishing fleet and lobstermen were competing for the same limited space. In 2005 some
immediate improvements were made to the pier to improve the working conditions, but it is still
aging. Discussions on closing all or part of the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary off
the coast of Scituate to fishing also have many fishermen worried. Also, Cape Cod Bay, where
many South Shore fishermen work, is critical North Atlantic right whale habitat, and parts of the
bay are frequently closed to fixed fishing gear or require gear modifications at times when the
whale are present, which impacts fishermen from the region.
At the Amendment 13 social impact informational meeting in Scituate, residents of South Shore
communities reported that they had experienced the most significant social impacts from the Gulf
of Maine inshore rolling closures. The closures significantly precluded fishing opportunities and
reduced flexibility for the relatively small-sized multispecies vessels in this area. The measures
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

478

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery

proposed in Amendment 16 that are likely to impact this community group the most, either
positively or negatively, are those that modify inshore Gulf of Maine area closures, the Gulf of
Maine cod trip limit, and differential DAS counting. However, depending on the alternative
selected, other measures will significantly affect this community group (for example, large-scale
DAS reductions).
Provincetown, Massachusetts: According to the year 2000 U.S. Census, Provincetown CDP had
a total population of 3,192, down 5.4% from the reported population of 3,374 in 1990.
One of the biggest controversies in Provincetown in the past few years has been the
reconstruction of the MacMillan Wharf. The community disagreed on the plans in 2000, but the
construction began in 2001. Floating docks added to the wharf were damaged in the first
Nor’easter after installation due to design flaws and have since been replaced with a better design.
After the wharf was reconstructed, the town created the Provincetown Public Pier Corporation
(PPPC). The first several years after the Town seated the PPPC Directors were contentious. The
PPPC increased dock rates; excursion businesses sued PPPC over rate increases and lost in court.
The fishers did not trust the PPPC to protect their interests and used the political climate to try to
dissolve the corporation. The outcome of three-way negotiations between the fishers’
organization ProFish, PPPC and the Board of Selectmen resulted in a reduced or protected rate
for the fishers of about half ($2000 per average boat in 2005) the market rate with an annual
consumer price index modifier. PPPC also completed a long stalled ice plant and delivery system
for the fishing fleet undercutting New Bedford delivered ice prices.
Although no social impact informational meeting was held in Provincetown for Amendment 13, it
can be assumed that impacts in Provincetown have been somewhat similar to those experienced
by residents of South Shore communities. The measures proposed in Amendment 13 that are
likely to impact this community the most, either positively or negatively, are those that modify
inshore Gulf of Maine area closures, the Gulf of Maine cod trip limit, and differential DAS
counting. However, depending on the alternative selected, other measures will significantly affect
this community (for example, large-scale DAS reductions).
Eastern Rhode Island: This community group includes Newport, Tiverton, Portsmouth, and
surrounding communities. According to Census 2000 data, Newport had a total population of
26,475, down 6.2% from the reported population of 28,227 in 1990. Portsmouth had a total
population of 17,149, up 2.0% from the reported population of 16,817 in 1990. Tiverton had a
total population of 15,260, up 110.2% from the reported population of 7,259 in 1990
Like many coastal communities in the area, Eastern Rhode Island towns have a problem with loss
of waterfront access. In Tiverton, a property known as Manchester’s, which has been in the past
leased to fishing companies for use as a wholesale and retail market, and where a number of
fishing vessels were docked, was sold in 2005 to a couple who intend to develop this area for
retail and tourism. In Newport, an increase in tourism, increasing property values, and
competition with recreational vessel for limited wharf space restrict fishing industry infrastructure
and are contributing to the decline of Newport’s fleet. Portsmouth’s waterfront is underutilized,
and there are a number of future development plans for it, including a large marina and luxury
condominiums. An additional highly controversial proposal in this area is one to bring liquid
natural gas (LNG) tankers into Fall River, which borders Tiverton. These tankers would have to
pass close to a segment of Tiverton’s shore. In addition to the safety concerns over having LNG
tankers in the area, this would possibly present an access problem for fishermen in Narragansett
Bay, as security regulations surrounding the tanker would restrict the use of part of the bay as the
tankers are passing through. This would also require dredging parts of the bay to allow the tanker
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

479

Affected Environment
Human Communities and the Fishery

to pass through, a plan that Save the Bay, an organization dedicated to the protection of
Narragansett Bay, claims would hurt the area’s already sensitive fisheries.
It is difficult to predict which Amendment 16 measures will most significantly impact this
community group. Because of its location and multispecies activity, it is likely to experience
impacts from most of the Amendment 13 measures that address Southern New England stocks,
including gear restrictions, trip limits, and further DAS reductions. The alternatives to address
capacity are also likely to significantly impact this community group.
Northern Coastal New Jersey: This community group includes Point Pleasant, Belford, Barnegat
Light, and surrounding communities. According to Census 2000 data, Point Pleasant had a total
population of 19,306, up 6.2% from the reported population of 18,177 in 1990. Belford had a
total population of 13,404 in 2000; 1990 population data was unavailable for Belford for
comparison. Long Beach township (which encompasses all of Long Beach Island with the
exception of the five independent boroughs) had a total population of 3,329 in 2000, down 3.6%
from 3,452 in 1990.
One emerging trend (as of 2006) on Long Beach Island and in other similar summer resort areas
is that as real estate prices soar, many year-round residents are selling their homes for bigger
homes on the mainland, tempted by the large price they can get. These homes are bought up by
those using them as summer homes. The results are dwindling year-round populations on places
like Long Beach Island, and a resulting loss in year-round businesses and students in local
schools. Like many other coastal communities, Barnegat Light must deal with the forces of
rapidly increasing home prices and the resulting gentrification. Because the community is
physically so small, there is very little land area for development, and the development of
condominiums or other properties generally involves land in existing use. The high housing costs
are encouraging many families to move to the mainland, and many of those employed in the
commercial fishing industry now do not reside in Barnegat Light. As Belford becomes more
accessible to commuters to New York City and elsewhere, and as housing is increasingly scarce
around the city, many people are moving to Belford and forcing up the price of homes. The
resulting increase in property taxes may force some residents who have lived in Belford their
entire lives to relocate. Belford represents some of the last untouched waterfront real estate in
New Jersey within commuting distance to New Jersey, and development pressures here are
increasing. The promised clam depuration plant and renovation of the cooperative and other
fishing infrastructure in Belford, which may be of great benefit to the fishing community here,
have been continuously postponed, and fishermen are concerned that condominiums will be built
on the property instead. The project was being headed by the Bayshore Economic Development
Corporation, which later became surrounded with controversy and had some of its state funding
cut off.
It is difficult to predict which Amendment 16 measures will most significantly impact this
community group. Because of its location and multispecies activity, it is likely to experience
impacts from most of the Amendment 16 measures that address Southern New England stocks,
including gear restrictions, trip limits, and further DAS reductions. Its low dependence on
groundfish suggests that there is a substantial amount of latent effort in the area, so the
alternatives to address capacity are likely to significantly impact this community group. There is
also a great deal of recreational fishing in the region, so recreational fishery users will also be
affected by measures that address capacity, the method of ACL allocation to that fishery, and gear
and area restrictions.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

480

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Analytic Approach and Limitations

7.0 Environmental Impacts of the Management
Alternatives
The impacts of the proposed management alternatives are described in this section. Expected
impacts are considered in four broad categories:
Biological impacts: the effect on fishing mortality, bycatch and bycatch mortality
Protected and threatened species
Economic impacts: the effects of the proposed measures on revenues and costs in the
fishery, and the impacts of those changes on other entities in coastal communities
Social impacts: the effects of the proposed measures on fishing communities and
participants in the fisheries affected by the FMP
Habitat impacts: the effects of the proposed measures and the extent to which they will
minimize the adverse effects of fishing on essential fish habitat

7.1

Analytic Approach and Limitations

The Council is proposing changes to address several broad issues: rebuilding overfished stocks,
ending overfishing, modifications to existing sector policies, addressing requirements to minimize
bycatch and/or bycatch mortality, and numerous administrative measures. Analyses are grouped
in the same manner, but the emphasis is on analysis of the measures designed to control fishing
mortality. In the case of measures designed to control fishing mortality, the impacts of measures
are analyzed by combining the measures as much as possible. This is because many of the
proposed measures interact with each other and analyzing the measures individually does not
capture the true impact of adopting a suite of measures. Where possible, quantitative impacts are
estimated, but the Council has limited ability to quantify the impacts of some of the indirect
management measures proposed in this framework. As a result, most alternatives are a
combination of quantitative and qualitative analysis. Some management measures are included in
several alternatives. Where this occurs, the detailed analysis is only described the first time the
measure appears in an alternative. In later alternatives, the measure is referenced and its effects
summarized.

7.1.1 Uncertainty About Sector Participation
The major cause of uncertainty in analyzing the biological, economic, and social impacts of the
proposed management measures is the uncertainty over the number of vessels that will choose to
participate in groundfish sectors.
In many respects, this management action will adopt two management systems at the same time:
an effort control system that has been used to manage the fishery since FY 1994, and an output
control system that is the underlying basis for self-selecting, voluntary sectors. While selfselecting sectors were first adopted in FY 2004 through Amendment 13, it is possible that with
the adoption of Amendment 16 the scale of participation will increase nearly ten-fold. Indeed, if
preliminary estimates of the number of sector participants proves correct, nearly two-thirds of the
fishery may choose to join sectors and be subject to hard TACs. Even so, a substantial portion of
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

481

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Analytic Approach and Limitations

the fishery will remain subject to effort controls, either by choice or because they are unable to
join a voluntary sector.
As the measures are being developed, the Council is not certain which vessels will choose to join
sectors and which vessels will remain subject to effort controls. The effectiveness of effort
controls could be compromised if they are designed for one group of vessels and a very different
set of vessels are subject to their application. In a simplistic example, if effort controls are
designed assuming that a variety if vessels will fish in different management areas for a variety if
stocks, and instead a small group of similar vessels fishes on only a few stocks, the measures may
not be effective: they could be too stringent or not stringent enough, they may sacrifice yield
unnecessarily or may allow excessive harvests on a few stocks.
Similarly, it is difficult to anticipate the impacts of sectors without definitive information on
which vessels will participate. Sectors will be subject to stringent monitoring requirements and
the attendant costs. If there are a large number of participants, economies of scale may be realized
that reduce the cost for individual vessels, whereas a small number of participants may have
difficulty absorbing these costs.
While it would facilitate the design of effort controls and analysis of sector impacts if definitive
information was available on sector participation prior to developing the management program,
there are good reasons why this information is not available. As long as sector participation is
voluntary, fishing vessel owners need to be provided sufficient information to make an informed
business decision prior to committing to a sector. This decision cannot be made without knowing
what the alternative to sectors will be, as well as what the requirements will be for sectors (with
respect to monitoring, reporting, costs, etc.). To require fishermen to commit to either sectors or
the effort control system without this information in hand is unreasonable. Under the current
timeline, at least vessel owners will know what choices the Council makes on these issues before
they are required to commit to a sector in fall 2009. While they will not know if the Council’s
recommendations will be approved by NMFS, at least some information on selected alternatives
will be available.
As a result of this uncertainty over sector participation, there is more uncertainty over the impacts
of the proposed measures than in the previous actions. Effort control measures were designed and
evaluated under the assumption that none of the vessels join sectors. Sector measures are
evaluated under the assumption that participation is similar to that indicated by sector rosters
developed in early CY 2008. These two assumptions are not consistent with each other. An
analytic approach was considered that would have used the preliminary sector participation
estimates to design effort controls. This was rejected on the basis that these early estimates were
based on non-binding expressions of interest and there was concern that this would underestimate the number of vessels that would remain subject to effort controls.

7.1.2 Closed Area/Effort Control Analysis
One of the primary analytic tools used to analyze both the biological and economic impacts of the
effort control alternatives (section 5.3.2) is the closed area model. Changes in mortality brought
about by area closures and revised trip limits were projected through a non-linear programming
model using the General Algebraic Modeling System (GAMS). The model has been previously
described in Amendment 13 (NEFMC 2003) and FW 42 (NEFMC 2006). This model attempts to
estimate fishery responses to management measures based on economic factors. The results an
also be used to estimate changes in exploitation, which can be converted to changes in fishing
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

482

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Analytic Approach and Limitations

mortality. Over time, the model has been modified in response to suggests from reviewers. The
current formulation of the model used for these analyses incorporates non-groundfish species into
the model, attempts to account for exchanges of DAS through leasing activity, and allows vessels
the potential to fish in more areas and time periods. More information on the current model
structure can be found in Appendix II.
To use the model, an initial model run was made based on the no action management regime.
Additional model runs are then made based on proposed changes in seasonal and year round area
closures, changes in trip limits, and changes in days at sea under each management option. The
estimated catch stream from each option is then compared to the no action catch stream, and the
percentage change in landings is calculated. These numbers should be interpreted as the percent
change in exploitation brought about by the proposed management action using the conditions
which existed during the 1998-2001 time period. Changes in the exploitation rate can then be
interpreted as equivalent changes in mortality. However, results should be interpreted cautiously
because some conditions may have changed which are not reflected in the base year data.
Additionally, there is variability around the estimates which is not fully captured by the model.
One weakness of the model is the uncertainty about catch rates that result from opening areas that
have been closed for a lengthy period of time. This is most problematic when changing the
boundaries of year round closed areas. Because there is limited trip information in the closed
area, the closed area model may under-estimate the catch rates that will result when an area
closed to year round fishing is re-opened. This is less of a problem for seasonal closures, since the
model incorporates recent trip information that reflects the catch rates that result immediately
after opening an area. An advantage of the model is that unlike the “no displacement” analysis of
closed areas (that is, assuming that effort in a newly closed area does not fish in another location),
it assumes fishing effort moves out of a closed area into an open area based on rational decisions
to maximize revenue. A second advantage is that the model output can include predicted impacts
on revenues, and this can be broken down by gear sector and tonnage class of vessel. The model
is a simulation of behavioral responses to changes in fishery regulations. It should not be
interpreted as a precise calculation of future fishing mortality. While the model output results in
apparently precise numerical estimates, it is better to interpret these as broad indicators of
relative changes, rather than as precise predictions of mortality impacts. Small percentage
changes, for example, should be viewed as less likely relative outcomes than large percentage
changes. For stocks where the Council is implementing measures to make large reductions in
fishing mortality, it should be clear that the results of the measures will have to be carefully
monitored to make sure the objectives are achieved. The model may not capture the exact
response of fishermen to the regulations and as a result may over or under estimate the realized
impacts.
As noted earlier, the percentage results should be interpreted as indicators of the relative change
in exploitation between options, and not as precise predictions of the result. Changes in
exploitation must be converted to a change in fishing mortality in order to determine if mortality
objectives are being met. When large reductions in mortality are needed, the PDT uses the criteria
that if the estimated reduction is within ten percent of the needed reduction, the proposed
measures are successful. The closed area output includes information on the revenues of
individual vessels, and this is used in the analysis of economic impacts of the alternatives (section
7.5).
The use of this model to evaluate effort controls for previous management actions has been
challenged. Most recently, a lawsuit was filed in 2007 challenging the model’s use to develop FW
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

483

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Analytic Approach and Limitations

42 management measures. On January 26, 2009 the court rejected the complaint that use of the
CAM did not constitute the best available science. As noted earlier, changes have been made to
the model since its use in FW 42. As management measures become increasingly complex, it
becomes more difficult to adapt the model to capture the interactions between measures and the
model results become more uncertain. The PDT explored the development of different models for
this action, but there was not sufficient time or resources to develop and vet an alternative prior to
submitting this document.

7.1.3 Combination of Quantitative Results
While the closed area model is the primary analytic tool used to estimate impacts of management
measures, other models are used as well. The closed area model results show changes in
exploitation, while the model used for estimating the impacts of mesh change shows reduction in
fishing mortality. Prior to combining the results from these two models, the changes in
exploitation are converted to percentage reductions in fishing mortality.
When quantitative impacts are calculated for more than one measure, they are not additive
because the measures interact with each other. They are combined by first calculating a multiplier
value for each, then by multiplying those values together. The multiplier is determined from the
following formula:
Multiplier = 1 – (Estimated F reduction)
Both of these issues are considered in the summary of biological impacts at the end of each
alternative. The summary tables show impacts on fishing mortality for GOM cod and GB cod.

7.1.4 Definition of the No Action Alternative
NEPA requires that the No Action alternative be defined and the impacts of the action should be
compared to this alternative. The M-S Act requires that management measures be based on the
best available science. These two requirements create a subtle conflict that complicates definition
of the No Action alternative.
The management plan defines mortality targets based on current assessments of stock status.
These new mortality targets determine the strategy that specific measures are designed to achieve.
Until these new targets are adopted they are not in effect. Thus it could be argued that the No
Action alternative should be based on existing mortality targets, and new measures should be
based on new mortality targets. If this is done, comparisons between the impacts of the No Action
alternative and the proposed measures become meaningless as the two are not attempting to
achieve the same goals. It makes little sense to evaluate that one or the other provides greater
economic returns if they do not accomplish the same biological objectives.
An additional nuance is that in many cases the current understanding of stock status does not
support the earlier mortality objectives. In these instances, using the old mortality targets as the
basis for analyses means that they would be based on faulty scientific information. This could
lead to misinterpretation of the impact analyses.
As a result, a two-step approach is taken in the impacts analyses. First, with respect to mortality
targets, the No Action alternative is based on the mortality targets and biological reference points
adopted by Amendment 13. It is compared to the revised mortality targets and status
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

484

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Biological Impacts of the Alternatives

determination criteria – our new understanding of the best available science. This demonstrates
whether the No Action alternative for mortality targets would meet rebuilding goals. All other
measures are then evaluated against the revised mortality targets and status determination criteria.

7.1.5 Limitations
Analysis of the impacts of the proposed management alternatives is complicated by the following
factors.
•
•

•
•

•

7.2

The range of proposals and the interaction between management measures precludes
analysis of the components on both large and small scales.
Many of the management measures interact with each other. Whenever possible, the
impacts of each alternative are analyzed as a combination of measures, usually by using
the closed area model. When estimates of fishing mortality reductions are obtained from
different analytic techniques, they cannot be summed to obtain an estimate of the overall
impacts. This is partly because the measures interact with each other, even if analyzed
separately.
The impacts of some measures in the alternatives cannot be quantified. When possible,
impacts are expressed in a combination of quantitative and qualitative terms.
There is limited ability to model long-range economic impacts. Any attempt to model
economic impacts into the future assumes no changes in the structure of the economy in
the interim. This is an unrealistic assumption over the time periods associated with the
rebuilding plans.
There is limited ability to estimate the economic impacts of changes to the recreational
fishing measures. There is both a lack of available data and lack of an ability to predict
how recreational fishermen will react to changes. The motivations for recreational fishing
are many and varied, and predicting changes in recreational fishermen's behavior is
nothing more than guesswork.

Biological Impacts of the Alternatives

7.2.1 Biological Impacts of the Proposed Action
7.2.1.1 Updates to Status Determination Criteria and Formal Rebuilding
Programs

7.2.1.1.1 Revised Status Determination Criteria
The specification of status determination criteria (SDC) is required by the guidelines for
interpretation of the National Standards (NSGs). The SDC are the biological underpinnings of the
management program. Comparison of current stock status (fishing mortality and stock biomass,
or proxies for those values) to the SDC determines whether the management plan is meeting
biological objectives and complies with legal requirements.
Under the Proposed Action, the SDCs are revised to adopt the best available science as
determined through GARM III and the DPWG. The differences between the proposed action and
the No Action alternative are highlighted in Table 174.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

485

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Biological Impacts of the Alternatives

In addition to differences in values, in some instances the No Action/Amendment 13 SDCs are a
different parameter than what is proposed. Continuing to use a parameter that is not consistent
with the currently used assessment model would make it difficult to accurately determine stock
status. Selecting the No Action alternative is also not consistent with using the best available
science for management actions.

Table 174 – Comparison of No Action and Proposed Status Determination Criteria
Species
Stock
Bmsy or proxy (mt)
Fmsy or proxy
No Action
Proposed
No Action
Proposed
Cod
GB
216,800
148,084
0.18
0.25
Cod
GOM
82,800
58,248
0.23
0.24
GB
250,300
153,329
0.26
0.35
Haddock (1)
Haddock
GOM
22.17 kg/tow
5,900
0.23 C/I
0.43
Yellowtail Flounder
GB
58,800
43,200
0.25
0.25
Yellowtail Flounder
SNE/MA
69,500
27,400
0.26
0.25
Yellowtail Flounder
CC/GOM
12,600
7,790
0.17
0.24
American Plaice
GB/GOM
28,600
21,940
0.17
0.19
Witch Flounder
25,240
11,447
0.23
0.20
Winter Flounder
GB
9,400
16,000
0.32
0.26
Winter Flounder
GOM
4,100
3,792
0.43
0.28
Winter Flounder
SNE/MA
30,100
38,761
0.32
0.25
Redfish
236,700
271,000
0.04
0.04
White Hake
GB/GOM
14,700
56,254
0.29
0.13
Pollock
GB/GOM
3.0 kg/tow
2.00 kg/tow
5.88 C/I
5.66 c/i
Windowpane
GOM/GB
0.94 kg/tow
1.40 kg/tow
1.11 C/I
0.50 c/i
Flounder
Windowpane
SNE/MA
0.92 kg/tow
0.34 kg/tow
0.98 C/I
1.47 c/i
Flounder
Ocean Pout
4.9 kg/tow
4.94 kg/tow
0.31 C/I
0.76 c/i
Atlantic Halibut
5,400
49,000
0.31 C/I
0.07
,1847 – 2,202
Atlantic Wolffish
NA
NA
< 0.35
mt

7.2.1.1.2 ABC Control Rules
The Proposed Action replaces the MSY control rules adopted by Amendment 9 and modified in
Amendment 13 with ABC control rules recommended by the SSC. These control rules are
intended to guide the SSC when setting ABCs. They were recommended because of the difficulty
in quantifying scientific uncertainty for groundfish stocks.
The fundamental idea of the Proposed Action is that fishing mortality should not exceed 75
percent of FMSY , or 75FMSY , at any time, regardless of stock size. This creates a consistent
difference between the overfishing level (fishing at FMSY ) and the ABC. This fishing mortality
rate is not adjusted for stock size. As a result, it differs from the MSY control rules adopted in
Amendment 9 and Amendment 13, which reduced the limit fishing mortality rate as stock size
declined below SSBMSY and called for the target fishing mortality to be set at 75 percent of this
limit. As a result, the proposed ABC control rule, in most cases, produces a fishing mortality rate
that is less than that based on the earlier MSY control rule, but is higher than the target fishing
mortality called for by earlier amendments.
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

486

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Biological Impacts of the Alternatives

In the case of stocks in rebuilding plans, the proposed control rule calls for using an Frebuild if
75FMSY will not rebuild in the time period chosen. For some stocks, this can create an unusual
situation. For stocks in poor condition - such as GB cod – Frebuild is needed and the ABC is set
at the median catch associated with Frebuild. There are other stocks, such as GOM cod, where
Frebuild is actually higher than 75FMSY , so the default control rule applies and the lower fishing
mortality is used (in the absence of additional information about uncertainty). This creates a
paradox: in the case of GOM cod, the ABC control rule produces an ABC that is lower than that
needed for rebuilding, but in the case of GB cod – a stock in worse condition – the ABC that
results is the median catch associated with the rebuilding mortality. In essence, a more
conservative ABC is set for a stock in better condition. The SSC’s rationale is that the proposed
approach places more emphasis on avoiding overfishing than on the rebuilding mortality rates. By
using 75FMSY for GOM cod, and Frebuild for GB cod, the ABC is set using a fishing mortality
that is more likely to avoid overfishing in each instance when additional information is not
available to estimate uncertainty more accurately.
Setting aside the issue of the ABC calculated for stocks with an Frebuild, in the long-term the
proposed ABC control rule approach should lead to stock sizes larger than SSBMSY. Restrepo et al
(1998) conducted simulations of this approach that indicated stock sizes on the order of 130
percent of SSBMSY would result. When compared to the No Action alternative, these results are
similar to what could be expected if the target fishing mortality was maintained.

7.2.1.1.3 Revised Mortality Targets for Formal Rebuilding Programs

7.2.1.1.3.1

Revised Rebuilding Mortality Targets

This proposal modifies fishing mortality rates for rebuilding programs and adopts rebuilding
programs for stocks that have been recently determined to be overfished. Projections were used to
predict the fishing mortality rates necessary for these rebuilding programs. The projection output
includes estimates of future stock size. If the assumptions used in the projections are correct, and
fishing mortality targets are achieved, stocks are expected to rebuild as shown in
Table 175. The following figures illustrate predicted stock growth given the fishing mortality rates

are achieved for all stocks with reliable projections, and projection assumptions are observed. The
charts include recent stock size for comparison to future predictions, as well as the proposed
SSBMSY level. In each chart the solid SSB line reflects the rebuilding strategy.
For GB yellowtail flounder, the GARM III assessment results were used to develop the
management measures and projections from that assessment are shown in Figure 116. Subsequent
to approval of the amendment by the Council, the stock was assessed by the Transboundary
Resource Assessment Committee (June, 2009). The results of that assessment will be used to set
ABCs and ACLs for FY 2010 – FY 2012 in a subsequent management action and the projected
SSB changes will be updated at that time.
Two charts are shown for SNE/MA winter flounder. The first chart (Figure 122) reflects
rebuilding in the absence of any fishing mortality. The next two charts reflect rebuilding under
two different interpretations of a fishing mortality “as close to 0 as possible.” The second chart
(Figure 123) reflects rebuilding if fishing mortality is reduced to F=0.09. This is slightly higher
than the mortality expected to result from the revised effort controls (F=0.08) but is used for the
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

487

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Biological Impacts of the Alternatives

projection to account for some level of discards in other fisheries. This chart reflects an increase
in discards as a result of management measures since possession is prohibited. As can be seen,
there is little difference in when the rebuilding target is achieved. The first chart shows rebuilding
achieved by spawning season in 2015, the second chart also shows rebuilding achieved some time
in 2015, and the third chart shows rebuilding achieved in 2016.
Charts are not shown for GOM winter flounder, Northern and Southern windowpane flounder,
ocean pout, or Atlantic wolffish. The GARM III review panel and Northern Demersal Working
Group advised against using the assessment results to calculate projections for those stocks. It
would not be consistent with the best scientific information available to present those projection
results. This makes it difficult to directly compare this option to the No Action option.
Selecting this option will not have direct impacts on non-groundfish stocks.
Table 175 – Expected dates for achieving rebuilding targets should mortality targets be achieved
1. There are two assessment runs for GB yellowtail flounder that give different results.

Stock
GB
GOM
GB
GOM
GB
SNE/MA
CC/GOM
GB/GOM
GB
GOM
SNE/MA

GOM/GB
SNE/MA

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

488

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Biological Impacts of the Alternatives

Figure 112 – GB cod predicted SSB, Proposed Action
GB Cod SSB
Proposed Action
200
180
160
140

SSB (K mt)

120
100
80
60
Upper Quartile
Median
Lower Quartile
SSBMSY
Observed SSB

40
20

20
28

20
27

20
25
20
26

20
24

20
23

20
21
20
22

20
20

20
18
20
19

20
17

20
16

20
14
20
15

20
13

20
12

20
10
20
11

20
09

20
07
20
08

20
06

20
05

20
04

20
03

Year

Figure 113 - GOM cod predicted SSB, Proposed Action
GOM Cod SSB
Proposed Action
90

SSB (K mt)

Upper Quartile
Median
Lower Quartile
SSBMSY
Observed SSB

Year

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

489

20
27
20
28

20
26

20
25

20
24

20
23

20
22

20
20
20
21

20
19

20
18

20
17

20
16

20
15

20
14

20
13

20
12

20
11

20
10

20
09

20
08

20
07

20
05
20
06

20
04

20
03

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Biological Impacts of the Alternatives

Figure 114 - GB haddock predicted SSB, Proposed Action
GB Haddock SSB
Proposed Action
450

400

350

SSB (K mt)

300

250

200

150

Lower Quartile
Median
Upper Quartile
Estimated SSB
SSBMSY

100

20
28

20
27

20
25
20
26

20
24

20
23

20
22

20
21

20
20

20
19

20
18

20
16
20
17

20
15

20
13
20
14

20
12

20
11

20
10

20
09

20
08

20
07

20
05
20
06

20
04

20
03

Year

Figure 115 – GOM haddock predicted SSB, Proposed Action
GOM Haddock SSB
Proposed Action
14

SSB (K mt)

4
Upper Quartile
Median
Lower Quartile
SSBMSY
Observed SSB

Year

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

490

20
28

20
27

20
26

20
25

20
24

20
23

20
22

20
21

20
20

20
19

20
18

20
17

20
16

20
15

20
14

20
13

20
12

20
11

20
10

20
09

20
08

20
07

20
06

20
05

20
04

20
03

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Biological Impacts of the Alternatives

Figure 116 - GB yellowtail flounder predicted SSB, (based on GARM III)
GB Yellowtail Flounder SSB
Proposed Action
(Based on GARM III Assessment)

SSB (K mt)

20
Upper Quartile
Median
Lower Quartile
SSBMSY
"Observed SSB"

20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
11
20
12
20
13
20
14
20
15
20
16
20
17
20
18
20
19
20
20
20
21
20
22
20
23
20
24
20
25
20
26
20
27
20
28

Year

Figure 117 – SNE/MA yellowtail flounder predicted SSB, Proposed Action
SNE/MA Yellowtail Flounder SSB
Proposed Action
45

SSB (K mt)

15
Upper Quartile
Median
Lower Quartile
SSBMSY
Observed SSB

Year

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

491

20
28

20
26
20
27

20
25

20
23
20
24

20
21
20
22

20
20

20
18
20
19

20
17

20
15
20
16

20
14

20
12
20
13

20
10
20
11

20
09

20
07
20
08

20
06

20
04
20
05

20
03

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Biological Impacts of the Alternatives

Figure 118 – CC/GOM yellowtail flounder predicted SSB, Proposed Action
CC/GOM Yellowtail Flounder SSB
Proposed Action
12

SSB (K mt)

4
Upper Quartile
Median
Lower Quartile
SSBMSY
Observed SSB

20
23
20
24
20
25
20
26
20
27
20
28

20
22

20
21

20
20

20
19

20
18

20
17

20
15
20
16

20
14

20
13

20
12

20
11

20
10

20
09

20
07
20
08

20
06

20
05

20
04

20
03

Year

Figure 119 – American plaice predicted SSB, Proposed Action
American Plaice SSB
Proposed Action
35

SSB (K mt)

Upper Quartile
Median
Lower Quartile
SSBMSY
Estimated SSB (before retro adj)

Year

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

492

20
27
20
28

20
26

20
24
20
25

20
23

20
22

20
21

20
20

20
19

20
18

20
17

20
16

20
15

20
14

20
13

20
12

20
11

20
10

20
08
20
09

20
07

20
05
20
06

20
04

20
03

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Biological Impacts of the Alternatives

Figure 120 – Witch flounder predicted SSB, Proposed Action
Witch Flounder SSB
Proposed Action
18

SSB (K mt)

Upper Quartile
Median
Lower Quartile
SSBMSY
Estimated SSB

20
28

20
26
20
27

20
25

20
23
20
24

20
21
20
22

20
20

20
18
20
19

20
17

20
15
20
16

20
14

20
12
20
13

20
10
20
11

20
09

20
07
20
08

20
06

20
04
20
05

20
03

Year

Figure 121 – GB winter flounder predicted SSB, Proposed Action
GB WinterFlounder
SSB
Proposed Action

SSB (K mt)

Upper Quartile
Median
Lower Quartile
SSBMSY
Estimated SSB

Year

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

493

20
28

20
26
20
27

20
24
20
25

20
23

20
21
20
22

20
20

20
18
20
19

20
17

20
15
20
16

20
13
20
14

20
12

20
10
20
11

20
09

20
07
20
08

20
06

20
04
20
05

20
03

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Biological Impacts of the Alternatives
Figure 122 – SNE/MA winter flounder predicted SSB, F=0
SNE/MA Winter Flounder SSB
Proposed Action, F=0
60

SSB (K mt)

20
Upper Quartile
Median
Lower Quartile
SSBMSY
Estimated SSB

20
28

20
27

20
26

20
25

20
24

20
23

20
22

20
21

20
20

20
19

20
18

20
17

20
16

20
15

20
14

20
13

20
12

20
11

20
10

20
09

20
08

20
07

20
06

20
05

20
04

20
03

Year

Figure 123 – SNE/MA winter flounder predicted SSB, Proposed Action (F=0.098)
SNE/MA Winter Flounder
Proposed Action
60

SSB (K mt)

Upper Quartile
Median
Lower Quartile
SSBMSY
Estimated SSB

0
2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Year

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

494

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Biological Impacts of the Alternatives

Figure 124 - Redfish predicted SSB, Proposed Action
Redfish SSB
Option 2
450

400

350

SSB (k mt)

300

250

200

150
Upper Quartile
Median
Lower Quartile
SSBMSY
Estimated SSB

100

0
03 004 005 006 007 008 009 010 011 012 013 014 015 016 017 018 019 020 021 022 023 024 025 026 027 028
2
2
2
2
20
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Year

Figure 125 – Atlantic halibut predicted SSB, Proposed Action
Atlantic Halibut SSB
Option 2
60

SSB ('000 mt)

0
2000

Projection
Estimated SSB
SSBMSY
2005

2010

2015
Year

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

495

2020

2025

2030

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Biological Impacts of the Alternatives

Figure 126 – White hake, Proposed Action
White Hake
Proposed Action
90

SSB (K mt)

20
Median
SSBMSY
"Observed SSB"

20
28

20
27

20
26

20
25

20
24

20
23

20
22

20
21

20
20

20
19

20
18

20
17

20
16

20
15

20
14

20
13

20
12

20
11

20
10

20
09

20
08

20
07

20
06

20
05

20
04

20
03

Year

7.2.1.1.3.2

Mortality Reductions to Achieve Rebuilding Targets

Option 2 proposes to alter the fishing mortality targets in order to rebuild groundfish stocks. In
order to design effort controls to achieve these targets fishing mortality was estimated for CY
2008 and the needed change was calculated. This section documents the calculation of these
changes.
The PDT’s approach to determine the rebuilding mortality targets and needed mortality
reductions for Amendment 16 is similar to that used for FW 42. Catch in 2008 was estimated
using six months of preliminary landings statistics provided by NERO, the ratio of discards to
landings in 2007 from the GARM, Canadian quotas for GB cod, haddock, and yellowtail
flounder, 2008 Canadian catch for pollock, and 2007 recreational catches for GB cod, GOM cod,
GOM haddock, pollock, SNE/MA winter flounder, and GB winter flounder. Estimates were not
made for the four stocks with very low landings. While the method used to estimate 2008 catch
has performed adequately in the past, it is not without uncertainty. Changes in discard rates,
recreational catch, and commercial fishing patterns could result in actual catches that differ from
these estimates. Table 176 summarizes the derivation and the results for 2008. In several
instances, the 2008 catch differs from that assumed for projections included in GARM III. PDT
analyses suggest that rebuilding mortality targets are not very sensitive to the 2008 catch
assumption, but it does have larger implications when estimating the necessary mortality
reductions to get from the current mortality (that is, 2008 as estimated using a catch estimate and
GARM III results) to the target fishing mortality. The necessary changes are shown in Table 16
and are not repeated here.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

496

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Biological Impacts of the Alternatives

Subsequent to developing these estimates and prior to the final decision on the amendment, the
PDT obtained preliminary landings information for calendar year 2008 and compared the earlier
estimates of catch to estimates derived with the new data. Substantial differences were noted for
pollock and GB winter flounder. The revised estimated 2008 catches for both of these stocks
increased: to 10,675 mt for pollock, and to 1,017 mt for GB winter flounder. The revised
estimates are used to determine the necessary mortality reductions shown in Table 16.
Projections were run to determine rebuilding mortality targets. The following assumptions were
used:
•
Beginning projection stock size, age structure, partial recruitment, weights-at-age,
and future recruitment assumptions were as approved by the GARM III for each stock.
•

The PDT’s estimate of catch was used for 2008.

•
For stocks that are currently in rebuilding programs, the probability of achieving
stock size at the end of the period is as specified in the plan: 75 percent for GB yellowtail
flounder, and 50 percent for all other stocks.
•
Fishing mortality in 2009 was assumed to be the rebuilding fishing mortality for
stocks currently in rebuilding plans, and FMSY for stocks that will begin a formal rebuilding
program at the implementation of Amendment 16 (May 1, 2010). These assumptions were
consistent with the mortality objectives and management measures in a proposed interim
groundfish action that was published January 16, 2009 (74 FR 2959).
Subsequent to approval of the draft amendment, NMFS published the final rule for the interim
groundfish action effective May 1, 2009 (74 FR 17030). While that action kept the same
mortality objectives as the proposed interim action, the measures were modified and analyses
showed that the proposed measures were not likely to meet the stated objectives for several
stocks: GB cod, witch flounder, SNE/MA winter flounder, pollock, and northern and southern
windowpane flounder. Since these objectives were used as the assumptions for 2009 fishing
mortality when developing the targeted fishing mortality rates for Amendment 16, the possibility
exists that not meeting the assumed mortality rates in 2009 would mean lower fishing mortality
rates would be needed beginning in FY 2010 than those shown in Table 16. This possibility was
examined in more detail.
The management process takes a considerable amount of time to identify issues, develop
alternatives, seek public input, and prepare, submit, review, and implement management
measures. As a result, new information is often received as this process continues. Whenever
possible, new information is incorporated into the design and analyses of measures. But the time
necessary to prepare documents means that at some point it is impossible to incorporate new
information into the process if required analyses and decisions are to be completed on time.
For both the draft document and the interim action, needed mortality objectives were determined
based on available information. A key factor in the design of effort controls for this amendment
and the interim action was the estimate of fishing mortality in 2008. Both the draft amendment
and the interim action used estimates of 2008 catch to determine the 2008 fishing mortality and
the reductions from 2008 needed to meet mortality objectives. For the interim action, the
reduction from 2008 was that needed to achieve the fishing mortality target for 2009. For this
amendment, the reduction from 2008 was that needed to meet the rebuilding mortality objectives
for 2010. These rebuilding mortality objectives depend in part on what is assumed for the 2009
mortality, though PDT analyses show that in general the mortality assumption for one year
generally has only small impacts on the needed rebuilding fishing mortality.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

497

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Biological Impacts of the Alternatives

As already noted, two of the original 2008 catch estimates were low (pollock and GB winter
flounder) and the catches were corrected when evaluating the change sin mortality needed for this
action. No adjustments were made in those instances where the revised estimate of 2008 catch
was lower than the original estimate. This was the case for GB cod and witch flounder. This
means that the interim action - based on a higher estimate of 2008 catch – may have overestimated the mortality reduction needed for these two stocks by some amount.
Subsequent to approval of the final document by the Council, additional catch information
became available for 2008. Using these data, the 2008 fishing mortality for GB cod is estimated
to be 0.304 and not the original estimate of 0.41. As a result, if the interim action achieves its
estimated reduction of 28 percent from 2008, then 2009 fishing mortality for this stock will be
just below FMSY . This means the Amendment 16 targets remain appropriate for this stock.
Similarly, the witch flounder fishing mortality in 2008 is estimated as 0.276 rather than the
original estimate of 0.296. The mortality reduction needed to achieve the 2009 target is reduced
to 27.5 percent rather than 32 percent. If the interim action achieves its estimate reduction of 17
percent from 2008, the 2009 fishing mortality will be about 0.23, higher than the FMSY of 0.20.
This small difference is not expected to affect the needed rebuilding target. Note also that the
adopted ABC control rule targets a mortality rate less than Frebuild for this stock.
For SNE/MA winter flounder, the targeted fishing mortality rate is as close to 0 as possible. The
2009 assumption does not change this objective, though it may affect when the target biomass is
achieved.
For the three index-based stocks where the interim action is not expected to achieve its objectives
– pollock, northern windowpane, and southern windowpane flounder - there is no projection
methodology that is used to estimate the required fishing mortality rate. As a result, the 2009
fishing mortality has no affect on the targeted fishing mortality rates for this amendment. Recent
catch and survey data also show that the exploitation rates for the two windowpane flounder
stocks in 2008 are lower than assumed for preparation of the interim action EA. In the case of
northern windowpane flounder, the 2008 exploitation index is only 40 percent of the 2007 value
used when preparing the interim action. As a result, the interim action impacts
Other provisions of the FMP will allow adjustments in the future should these targeted fishing
mortality rates prove incorrect. Rebuilding progress is monitored and management measures can
be changed through a framework or amendment. ACLs established very two years will consider
the most recent data and estimates of fishing mortality. These adjustment mechanisms provide a
process for ensuring that stock rebuilding continues.
Selecting this option will not have direct impacts on non-groundfish stocks.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

498

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Biological Impacts of the Alternatives

Table 176 – Derivation of 2008 estimated catch for rebuilding projections. See text for revisions for pollock and GB winter flounder.
Maximum
Prelim.
Jan-Jun Prelim.
Estimated
Estimated
Landings,
Landings, Percent of
Commercial
Comm.
Jan – Jun
Total
Catch
Catch
GARM III
Total
Average, Based Based
2007
Discards
Est.
Stock
2007
2008
CY 2007
2008
Canada
CY 2005on
on
Rec
as % of
2008
CY 2007
2007
05-07
Harvest
Landings
Catch
GB Cod
1,829
1,878
0.282
0.48
0.55
5,016
4,378
5,016
8
1,633
6,657
GOM Cod
1,468
2,356
0.129
0.38
0.39
7,002
6,822
7,002
1,026
8,028
GB
Haddock
1,373
2,986
0.660
0.46
0.59
10,776
8,401
10,776
14,950 25,726
GOM
Haddock
217
0.066
0.74
0.70
313
330
330
630
960
GB
Yellowtail
804
483
0.474
0.70
0.60
1,017
1,187
1,187
550
1,737
SNE/MA
Yellowtail
61
122
0.895
0.44
0.49
525
472
525
525
CC/GOM
Yellowtail
215
300
0.298
0.48
0.52
811
749
811
811
Plaice
419
426
0.241
0.42
0.47
1,258
1,124
1,258
1,258
Witch
Flounder
599
581
0.090
0.56
0.58
1,131
1,092
1,131
1,131
GB Winter
Flounder
384
261
0.245
0.45
0.46
722
707
722
722
GOM
Winter
Flounder
109
132
0.065
0.46
0.48
306
293
306
28
334
SNE/MA
Winter
Flounder
546
312
0.070
0.36
0.32
928
1,044
1,044
121
1,165
Redfish
438
617
0.474
0.56
0.56
1,624
1,624
1,624
1,624
White Hake
673
469
0.371
0.44
0.50
1,461
1,286
1,461
1,461
Pollock
3,539
3,765
0.42
0.42
8,964
8,964
8,964
383
417
9,764

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

499

GARM III
Assumed
2008
Catch
5,957
5,268
21,929
1,368
2,500
396
627
1,126
1,172
980

305

1,857
1,160
2,200
7,756

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Biological Impacts of the Alternatives

7.2.1.2

Fishery Program Administration

7.2.1.2.1 Annual Catch Limits
The Proposed Action adopts ACLs. By themselves, ACLs will not have any direct effect on
fishing mortality. They define the catch that should be taken from the fishery to reduce the
likelihood of overfishing. If used to help design management measures, and as the basis for AMs,
ACLs are expected to reduce the risk that fishing mortality targets will be exceeded. They allow
for a more explicit incorporation of uncertainty and risk when determining catch levels. It is
important to note that ACLs are designed to prevent overfishing – that is, to prevent exceeding
the maximum fishing mortality threshold.
The proposed measure defines the process for setting ACLs for regulated groundfish. Included
are definitions for determining an overfishing level (OFL) and an Acceptable biological Catch
(ABC). The ABC is defined in such a way that it is based on the fishing mortality rate associated
wit the rebuilding plan (for overfished stocks) or the control rule. These fishing mortality rates
will always be less than the maximum fishing mortality threshold when the stock is less than
BMSY or its proxy. This provides a measure of caution even before the ACL is determined. The
ACL cannot exceed the ABC, which further reduces the risk the overfishing threshold will be
exceeded. By specifying an ACL, such uncertainties as management uncertainty and risk can be
considered. In order to monitor ACLs and adopt the appropriate AMs, sub-components of each
ACL are identified. These sub-components allocate a portion of each stock to different fisheries.
While this can be viewed as an allocation decision with only social and economic implications, in
reality by promoting a more accurate accounting of how groundfish are caught it may lead to less
risk that mortality targets will be exceeded.
Determining the correct amount to allocate to various sub-components is difficult because for the
most part there is not a ready estimate of groundfish caught in other “fisheries” as the
management system uses the term. For example, the SBRM is designed around “fishing modes”:
a particular gear, mesh size, access category, and port of departure. Where the SBRM refers to
large mesh otter trawl vessels leaving from New England ports, managers think of the groundfish
or fluke fisheries. In addition, in the past assessments have not included all catch. Some stocks do
not include discards, or do not consider discards from fisheries with low observer coverage or low
discard rates.
The PDT considered several sources of information to construct the proposed option. Since
groundfish are only supposed to be landed by vessels with a groundfish permit, the primary
source of catch in other fisheries should be discards. First, the PDT used discard estimates from
an NEFSC reference document that estimates discards for 2005 by fishing mode using the SBRM
methodology. The species where discards by gear not typically considered groundfish gear
(scallop dredges, mid-water trawls, pelagic longlines, etc.) exceeded five percent of landings were
identified. These were ocean pout, windowpane flounder, winter flounder, and yellowtail
flounder. Preliminary 2005 and 2006 catch (landings and discards) estimates for these species
were further examined by stock to see if there were stock specific differences. Second, in the case
of SNE/MA yellowtail flounder, an attempt (not entirely successful) was made to determine if
discards were primarily caused by non-groundfish activity by looking at the target species on
tows where yellowtail flounder was discarded. This does not seem to be the case. Third, a NMFS
report to Congress was reviewed to determine the catch within state waters fisheries. Finally,
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

500

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Biological Impacts of the Alternatives

observer data for exempted fisheries was reviewed to see if any exempted fisheries exceeded the
overall five percent standard. While in most cases there are significant numbers of observed trips
where groundfish exceeds the five percent standard and these fisheries may need to be more
closely examined, in no case did the overall total on all observed trips exceed five percent of the
total catch.
These analyses suggest that for most stocks the amount allowed for “other non-specified
fisheries” should be five percent. For windowpane flounders this amount should be 30 percent. A
specific sub-component should be allocated to the scallop fishery for all yellowtail flounder
stocks and possibly windowpane flounder stocks. Determining the appropriate amount for the
scallop fishery is difficult. It is probably unwise to attempt to set a fixed percentage. The “right”
amount may depend on the rotational management program, stock status, and other factors. The
Council believes it may be better to leave the specific amount undefined, but establish a process
to determine the amount through the periodic adjustment process. Existing regulations suggest
that this amount would be at least 10 percent for those areas that have closed area access
programs in effect. The proposal shows that ACLs are only specified for the commercial
groundfish, recreational groundfish, and the herring mid-water trawl fishery. In part this is due to
the impracticality of developing AMs for other sub-components in the time available for this
amendment. In essence, it means that the groundfish fishery is accountable for overages by any
other group. This decision will need to be re-evaluated in the future after monitoring the
performance of these sub-components.
Selecting this option will not have direct impacts on non-groundfish stocks, but may have indirect
impacts on such stocks. This is particularly important in the setting of sub-ACLs for fisheries
that catch groundfish as bycatch when targeting other stocks. For example, the Atlantic Herring
fishery is allocated a sub-ACL of haddock. Specification of the haddock ACL could have
indirect biological impacts on the herring fishery, particularly if the haddock sub-ACL for the
herring fishery is small. If the haddock sub-ACL is caught by herring vessels, current regulations
reduce the herring possession limit and, therefore, herring catch within the GB/GOM Herring
Exemption Area. In addition, if the ACLs specified for the directed groundfish fishery are caught
or exceeded, the resulting AMs triggered by catching such ACLs (e.g., differential DAS counting,
trip limit changes, area closures, etc.) could cause groundfish vessels to redirect fishing effort into
other fisheries. The precise impacts of such responses are impossible to predict and quantify and
would be based upon the specific AM triggered. Proposed effort controls for the groundfish
fishery may be able to minimize the impact of such potential effort shifts by reducing the
likelihood that catch will exceed the specified ACLs and trigger the associated AMs.

7.2.1.2.2 Addition of Atlantic Wolffish to the Management Unit
Atlantic wolffish was recently assessed through a Data Poor Working Group (DPWG 2009).
Several measures of abundance show that this stock has declined in abundance since roughly the
mid-1980s and it has been determined it is overfished. This species is caught by vessels fishing
for groundfish in the Gulf of Maine and Georges Bank areas. While adding Atlantic wolffish to
the management unit is merely an administrative first step, it facilitates the implementation of
management measures to protect this stock under the provisions of the M-S Act. A specific
measure is also included that is expected to reduce wolffish fishing mortality (see section 4.3.5).
There could potentially be differential indirect impacts of the wolffish EFH designation
alternatives on stocks of fish that are included in the multispecies FMU if larger designated areas
lead to a greater number or increased effectiveness of EFH consultations on fishing and nonfishing activities in the Gulf of Maine-Georges Bank-southern New England region, and if those
consultations succeed in reducing adverse habitat impacts, thereby increasing the productivity of
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

501

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Biological Impacts of the Alternatives

exploited fishery resources. However, adding wolffish to the existing array of federally-managed
species would not improve the current level of habitat protection because none of the EFH
designation alternatives for wolffish would add any new geographic area or habitat features that
aren’t already included by some of the 27 species (and four life stages) managed by the NEFMC.
Thus, there would be no impact of any of the EFH designation alternatives on exploited
biological resources in federal waters.

7.2.1.2.3 Sector Administration Provisions
This action proposes numerous changes to the administration of voluntary, self-selecting sectors.
All of these changes are designed to improve the effectiveness of sectors as a management option.
Some of the proposed changes are primarily administrative in nature. Many of these
administrative measures provide more detail on the information sector organizers should submit
when applying for a sector or in annual reports. These are unlikely to have any direct biological
impacts. The proposed measures that fall into this category are:
•
•

Sector formation proposal and operations plan revisions
Sector annual reports

This action also changes the method used to determine the potential sector contribution (permit
history) for limited access permit holders eligible to join sectors. While this action determines the
annual catch entitlement (ACE) for each sector, which limits the sector’s catch, the allocations
themselves do not have direct biological impacts. It is possible that the Proposed Action may
have indirect biological impacts. For example, if it results in allocating more groundfish to a
sector that because of its fishing practices has more interaction with a non-groundfish stock that is
over-fished, including the use of less selective fishing gear that results in increased bycatch of
non-targeted species, that option could increase fishing mortality on that stock and slow
rebuilding progress. These types of indirect impacts are impossible to predict without knowing
sector membership and fishing practices. Because the Proposed Action allocates resources based
on recent landings history, any indirect impacts will be due primarily to the transfer of ACE
between sectors, or other exchanges of fishing privileges (such as through combining permits
under the DAS transfer program).

7.2.1.2.3.1

Allocation of Resources

This action proposes to change how resources are allocated to sectors. The option proposed
requires that sector fishing be limited by a hard TAC for all regulated groundfish stocks, except
for ocean pout, the two windowpane flounder stocks, SNE/MA winter flounder, Atlantic wolffish,
and halibut. Limiting sectors to TACs for more stocks should provide more certainty that fishing
mortality targets will be met. For the six stocks not limited by a hard TAC, measures will be
adopted to reduce the likelihood that these stocks are targeted and to control catches (halibut is
already limited to one fish per trip).
The Proposed Action changes how ACE is allocated to sectors, except the allocation of GB cod
for permits committed to one of the two existing sectors as of a specific date. By selecting these
two options, sector TAC allocations will represent the recent fishing histories of participating
vessels and would not result in a redistribution of fishing effort.
This action also provides that when the sectors are issued their ACE at the beginning of the
fishing year, twenty percent will be withheld for up to forty-five days. This provides an
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

502

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Biological Impacts of the Alternatives

opportunity for NFMS to verify that sectors did not exceed their ACE in the previous year and to
adjust allocations of ACE in the current year if that occurred. This measure provide positive
biological benefits because it makes it more likely that fishing mortality targets (that is, the
portion subject to fishing by sectors) will not be exceeded over successive fishing years.
The Proposed Action will not have direct impacts on non-groundfish stocks, but could have some
indirect impacts on such stocks. Sectors may not be allocated stocks in all stock areas. If a sector
is not allocated ACE for all groundfish stocks within a particular stock area, participating vessels
cannot fish for groundfish in that particular stock area. This would reduce the catch and,
therefore, mortality of non-groundfish stocks. Such impacts may be mitigated at least in part by
other provisions proposed in this action, including ACE transfers and the requirement for sectors
to cease fishing operations in a particular stock area once sector ACEs for relevant stocks in that
area have been caught. If sector ACEs are small and caught early in the fishing year, there is the
potential that sector operations may shift to targeting other fisheries in other areas. If this were to
occur, catch and, therefore, mortality on those non-groundfish stocks would increase.

7.2.1.2.3.2

U.S./Canada Area

This action proposes to make a specific allocation of cod and haddock on eastern GB that is
subject to management under the terms of an understanding between the U.S. and Canada. This is
not expected to have any direct biological impacts, as it is primarily an allocation issue. It may
have some benefits in controlling fishing mortality and reducing discards of non-target species as
it allows sectors to operate in a rationale manner in this area rather than compete in a derby with
non-sectors vessels in this area.
Selecting this option will not have direct impacts on non-groundfish stocks.

7.2.1.2.3.3

Monitoring and Enforcement

Sector fishing activity is controlled by limits on how much the sector can catch – ACE. These are
“hard” limits- sectors must stop fishing before they exceed these limits. There are two
components to catch – landings and discards. In order to ensure that sector catches are actually
limited to the ACE, both landings and discards must be accurately monitored. The proposed
measures in this section are designed to increase confidence that sector catches are accurate.
The requirement that sectors land all legal-sized fish is meant to discourage sectors from
discarding catches to avoid exceeding ACE. While admittedly difficult to monitor or enforce, this
measure does encourage sectors to land all catch of legal-size. If adhered to, this measure may
reduce discards of legal fish. Sectors are also required to prove they can attribute landings to a
specific stock area, in order to reduce the likelihood sector catches will be applied to the wrong
stock. This could lead to indirect benefits as improved attribution of catch to stock areas may lead
to better management and assessment of the stocks. Finally, the requirement that sectors
implement an improved dockside monitoring system, and limit landings to specific ports, will
improve confidence in landed amounts.
With respect to accounting for sector discards, two approaches were considered in this
amendment. The proposed approach applies an estimated discard rate to sector landings on a tripby-trip basis if there is insufficient data to determine an in-season rate. This discard rate will be
determined based on past observed trips on sector vessels. With the initiation of additional
sectors, this discard rate will be based on fishing activity prior to implementation of the new
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

503

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Biological Impacts of the Alternatives

sectors. Many of the discards during this period are caused by regulations (trip limits, quotas,
etc.) that sectors will not be required to adhere to. As a result, it is likely that these discard rates
will be higher than those experienced by the sector and using this rate will over-estimate sector
catches. Support for this assumption can be found in the experience of the Fixed Gear Sector in
FY 2007, where it appears that discard rates for permits in the sector may have been lower than
when those permits were not in the sector (see section 6.2.4.2.2). This could help reduce fishing
mortality, since the catches that are applied against ACE are likely to be higher than actual
catches, and sectors may have to stop fishing earlier as a result.
Another possibility, however, is that while this may hold true while sectors have sufficient ACE
available to continue fishing, as they approach an ACE that could result in stopping fishing,
discard rates might increase above those used in the estimated discard rate. For this reason, the
use of an estimated discard rate is intended to be a temporary measure. Sectors will be required to
develop a monitoring system that meets NMFS standards that will adequately monitor discards by
sector vessels. Standards will be developed and published to facilitate the development of such
systems. Once the system is developed, a sector will be required to use it, which should improve
discard estimation for sectors.
The proposal requires that monitoring systems developed by the sector include an at-sea
component through the use of observers or electronic monitoring systems. This at-sea component
must be in place by year three of the sector’s operations. Some sectors may choose to adopt such
a system earlier than year three if they believe their discard rates are lower than the assumed
discard rates; proving this is the case will allow them to land more of the assigned ACE,
increasing revenues. The monitoring standards require that the at-sea program allow the
estimation of discards with a CV of at least 30 percent (the standard adopted by the SBRM
(2007)), but the actual coverage levels will be determined by NMFS and will consider other
factors, such as the requirement to ensure the estimates are not biased. Public comment on the
SBRM reflected concerns that this CV standard was too high (that is, discards were not being
estimated with a sufficient degree of precision) and a lower value should be established. In reply,
NMFS noted that discards are a relatively small proportion of the total catch for most species and
the CV of landings estimates contributes more to the precision of total catch estimates.
Nevertheless, the standard proposed here is that at a minimum sector at-sea monitoring must meet
this standard and the program must be approved by NMFS. Because the SBRM approach is not
specifically designed for quota monitoring, NMFS may impose additional requirements. Should a
higher standard be deemed necessary for a particular sector or all sectors it can be easily
implemented through the review of the sector Operations Plan by NMFS. Actual discard rates
will be used whenever NMFS determines data is sufficient to to do, regardless of the source.
One concern is that sector participants may alter behavior when an observer is on board. As a
result, a CV standard may be met but discard estimates may be biased. Setting a particular CV
standard does not resolve this issue; the only real solution is to require higher levels of observer
coverage to reduce the effect of this behavior on catch estimates. Again, the Proposed Action
allows NMFS to require a higher coverage level to address these concerns.
Selecting this option will not have direct impacts on non-groundfish stocks.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

504

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Biological Impacts of the Alternatives

7.2.1.2.3.4

Transfer of Annual Catch Entitlements

This action adopts Option 2, allowing sectors to transfer ACE between sectors. Allowing transfer
of ACE should not result in increased fishing mortality. It does not change the allocations to the
sectors and so at worse should be neutral – that is, this option should not increase or decrease
fishing mortality. ACE trading may actually prove to help control fishing mortality. Since sectors
must stop fishing on all groundfish stocks in an area if an ACE for one stock is exceeded, there is
the possibility that if a sector unexpectedly approaches the limit for one stock, members may have
an incentive to illegally discard additional catches in order to avoid sacrificing yields on other
stocks. Allowing the trading of ACE helps to reduce this perverse incentive because it provides a
sector an opportunity to acquire more ACE for this stock and continue fishing, discouraging
discards. Note that this provision does not allow a sector to continue fishing if its ACE is
exceeded – the measure still requires that sectors stop fishing if this is the case.
The provision also allows sectors to trade ACE for a brief period after the end of the fishing year,
to “balance the books” and avoid an overage penalty. This should be a rare occurrence since
sectors are required to monitor catches in-season and stop fishing if an ACE is expected to be
exceeded. This should not have any impact on fishing mortality.
This option also proposes to allow sectors to carry-over unused ACE into the next fishing year.
The percentage of ACE that can be carried-over in this manner is limited to ten percent of the
ACE that is allocated. An allocation carry-over can increase the risk that overfishing will occur.
The reason is that there is not a one-to-one relationship between uncaught fish in year one and
fish available for catching in year two. The relationship will be dynamic and stock specific,
depending on such factors as natural mortality, selection pattern for that species, recruitment, and
species growth. Allowing carry-over creates the possibility that by design of the management
plan catches in year two will exceed the year two TAC/ACL by enough to cause overfishing. This
risk increases if the stock is stable or declining in stock size, or if the target fishing mortality is
low relative to natural mortality (as is the case for several rebuilding plans).
The Groundfish PDT examined two illustrations of this problem that assumed the entire carryover and base allocation are caught in the subsequent year and that catch levels are set exactly at
the level that determines overfishing will occur. While these three assumptions are unrealistic (it
is more likely that part of the available catch will not be caught each year, as noted in Sanchirico
et al (2006), and catch levels will not be set at the overfishing level through the ACL process) the
illustrations showed that allowing a carry-over increases the risk of overfishing in a given year.
The likely schedule of TAC/ACE adjustments means that these risks increase the older the
assessment used to calculate the TAC. Other sources of uncertainty - retrospective patterns, etc. –
could also exacerbate this problem.
It is possible to implement a carry-over system that does not increase the risk of overfishing by
reducing allocations sufficiently so that even if the maximum carry-over is harvested in the
following year, overfishing does not occur. One way to design such a program is to withhold part
of the sector allocation each year to allow for the possibility of carry-over. It should also be noted
that the risk of overfishing as a result of carry-over may be reduced if the ACE is based on an
ACL that explicitly accounts for that risk. The development of the ACL system includes
evaluating management uncertainty for different components of the groundfish fishery ACL (see
section 4.2.1.3). One of those components will be the portion of the ACL that is allocated to
sectors. If ACE carry-over is allowed, this fact can be considered when setting the ACL for
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

505

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Biological Impacts of the Alternatives

sectors. As experience is gained with the performance of sectors and the frequency that a carryover provision is used, the ACL can be adjusted to make certain overfishing does not occur.
Sanchirico et al (2006) reviewed catch share systems in Iceland, New Zealand, Canada, and
Australia. They concluded that allowing quota-balancing through trading of ACE and small levels
of carry-over can greatly increase the flexibility of fishermen to adapt when allocated ACE is not
aligned with catch rates. This produces positive incentives for desired behavior: the ability to
acquire ACE reduces the incentive for fishermen to discard catches that may exceed their ACE,
and the ability to carry-forward small amounts of ACE into the next allocation period reduces
incentives to fish right up to the maximum allowed amount. When these transfers occur between
fishermen within an allocation period the net exchange is zero and there is no impact whatsoever
on the probability of achieving mortality targets. While they did note that a carry-over provision
does result in a risk that mortality targets will be exceeded, the level of risk can be contained by
specifying a limit on the amount that can be carried-forward and by not allowing the amounts to
accumulate over time. Both of these provisions are included in this action: the maximum carryover is limited to ten percent of the ACE for each stock and carry-over does not accumulate over
time.
Selecting this option will not have direct impacts on non-groundfish stocks.

7.2.1.2.3.5

Participation in Special Management Programs

These measures describe sector participation in special management programs. Because sectors
would likely be exempt from trip limits and some gear requirements under the Proposed Action,
the catch per unit effort of sector vessels and could increase, particularly if sector vessels
participate in special management programs that provide access to closed areas. While this may
not increase sector catch, it could alter the composition of sector catch from previous years,
particularly if sectors utilize access to closed areas under special management programs to catch a
majority of their allocated ACE of high-value groundfish stocks such as cod and haddock. Since
these programs do not provide sectors additional effort or catch, and all catches will apply against
sector ACE, these measures are not expected to have any overall effect on fishing mortality for
groundfish stocks.
Selecting this option will not have direct impacts on non-groundfish stocks, but may have indirect
impacts on non-groundfish stocks. This could result if sectors increase participation in special
management programs to increase their catch per unit effort on groundfish stocks. Not only
would this practice increase catch of non-groundfish stocks, but if such practices result in the
early harvest of sector ACE for groundfish stocks, sectors may also shift effort onto nongroundfish stocks and further increase catch and, therefore, mortality on non-groundfish stocks.

7.2.1.2.3.6 Interaction with Common Pool Vessels/Universal
Exemptions
This section specifies the measures from which sectors cannot be excused, as well as those
measures that that all sectors do not need to adhere to and so receive an automatic exemption.
There are no changes to the measures that all sectors must follow (The No Action alternative is
adopted for these provisions), and the rationale for those requirements is not repeated. This
action, however, establishes several measures that all sectors will not have to follow. Without
exception, these measures are elements of the input/effort control system used to control fishing
mortality on groundfish vessels. Since sectors are subject to a hard TAC for most stocks, these
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

506

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Biological Impacts of the Alternatives

measures are unnecessary for controlling fishing mortality. Most sectors were expected to
request, and receive, exemptions from these measures; including them as universal exemptions
simplifies sector administration.
Allowing sectors to be exempt from trip limits may reduce regulatory discards. In recent years
many discards have been caused by the need for vessels to discard marketable fish to comply with
established trip limits. By exempting sector vessels from these requirements, discards of regulated
groundfish stocks may be reduced. This may also lead to reduced time spent fishing since more
catch can be landed on a given trip, but this will only occur if it is profitable for sector vessels.
The seasonal closed area on Georges Bank was adopted to reduce fishing mortality on GB stocks,
primarily GB cod. Again, since sectors have their catches controlled by a hard TAC there is no
need for this closure to control fishing mortality from sector vessels. Cod spawning on GB
extends into May, so increased sector effort during this period may impact on spawning activity.
Given poor recruitment observed in recent years on GB this may be a concern.
Since sector vessels will have their catches controlled by a hard TAC, there is no need for DAS
restrictions to limit groundfish catches.
The Proposed Action authorizes the use of a six-inch mesh codend when sector vessels fish with
selective trawl gear. This will facilitate targeting haddock by sector vessels. This may result in
sector vessels catching haddock of a smaller size than common pool vessels. These impacts are
difficult to predict, as mesh size is only one element that bears on the selectivity of the fishery. If
sectors catch smaller fish, and account for a large proportion of the catch, over the long-term this
could result in changes to the composition of the stock and possible modifications to status
determination criteria. Since fishing mortality is based on the number offish killed, it could also
mean that sectors account for a larger percentage of fishing mortality on haddock than is expected
based on the quota (ACE) allocated to sectors.
The Proposed Action automatically exempts sector vessels from some of the rolling closures in
the GOM. Sectors are exempted from the offshore rolling closure areas in April, the May rolling
closure in the Massachusetts Bay area (blocks 124/125) and east of the WGOM closed area, a
portion of the June closure extending into the GOM, and the October/November closures of
blocks 124 and 125. The biological impacts of this exemption are difficult to predict. When first
adopted in FW 25 (NEFMC 1997) the rolling closures were adopted primarily to reduce catches
of GOM cod. While not cited in the documents establishing the closures many believe that the
timing and areas were intended to reduce fishing activity on cod spawning aggregations. Over the
years the closure areas were modified numerous times, most recently in Amendment 13. The
Amendment 13 closures were designed to reduce fishing mortality on several groundfish stocks
and did not explicitly consider spawning activity.
To the extent the exemptions proposed reflect periods when cod are aggregated (whether for
spawning or other reasons), the catch rates by sector vessels may be higher than at other times of
the years. Since sector catches are limited by a hard TAC this exemption should not have impacts
on fishing mortality. Fishing on spawning aggregations may have impacts beyond those on
fishing mortality. Thompson (pers. com.) summarized these in a letter to the Council as follows:
•
•

Fishing activity may disrupt spawning signals and thereby reduce spawning success
(Rountree et al. 2006);
Fishing activity may disturb spawning habitat or habitat essential for early life history
stages;

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

507

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Biological Impacts of the Alternatives

•
•

Spawning fish are stressed and may be less able to survive handling, or capture may
reduce egg production, even if fish are released (Taylor et al. 2001);
Fishing increases mortality which reduces the number of older fish spawning. This may
have adverse impacts as there is evidence (at least for cod) that first time spawners
perform poorly compared to repeat spawners (Trippel, 1998).

Within the areas of the exemption, there is general information on spawning activity for several
stocks. Table 177 summarizes the spawning periods for regulated groundfish in the GOM.
According to Lough (2004), cod spawning in the GOM occurs from winter through spring but the
time of peak spawning varies with location. Spawning in Massachusetts Bay peaks in January and
February, north of Cape Ann it peaks between February and April, and off the coast of Maine it
peaks between March and May. Generally, sector vessels are not automatically exempted from
closures that overlap these cod spawning periods, though this is further explored below. The
extended spawning periods for many groundfish stocks mean it is possible that the areas that are
open to sector vessels may include spawning fish. If so, then approving this option may lead to
the effects that are described in the previous paragraph. Of particular interest are the peak
spawning periods for American plaice and GOM haddock. American plaice maximum spawning
occurs in the western Gulf of Maine, with peak spawning in April and May. They are batch
spawners, releasing eggs every few days over the spawning period; nursery areas are found in
coastal waters of the GOM (Johnson, 2004). Peak spawning for GOM haddock occurs between
February and April; Jeffreys Ledge and Stellwagen Bank are the primary spawning sites
(Brodziak 2005). Sector a vessel access to the inshore GOM could have impacts on spawning
activity of these two stocks.
Recent cod tagging studies provided additional information on cod spawning activity in the
inshore GOM, including the areas and times of the rolling closures. Howell et al. (2008) reported
a mark and recapture study of cod in the GOM, particularly related to the closed areas. Seasonal
changes in abundance in the inshore areas were noted and these seemed consistent with spawning
activity. In block 133, two peaks in abundance were observed: November-January and April –
July, suggesting two distinct spawning populations. They concluded that the closure of block 124
in April, May, and November seemed appropriate to protect spawning fish, as did the closure of
block 133 in April and May but possibly not June. The proposed exemption will allow sector
vessels to fish in block 124 in November and May, reducing protection for spawning fish.
Selecting this option will not have direct impacts on non-groundfish stocks.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

508

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Biological Impacts of the Alternatives

spawning months
peak spawning
months

Species
American Plaice,GM
GOM Atlantic Cod
Atlantic Halibut
GOM Haddock
Northern Ocean Pout
Pollock
Redfish

January

February

March

April

May

June

July

August September October November December

Atlantic Canada waters

*copulation from Oct-Jan;
fertilization from Feb-April; no
peak times evident
*no peak times evident

GB-GOM White Hake
GB Windowpane
GOM Winter Flounder
GB-GOM Witch Flounder
CC-GOM Yellowtail
Flounder

Table 177 - Spawning periods for GOM regulated groundfish. (Source: Essential Fish Habitat source documents)

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

Notes
Berrien and Sibunka 1999

509

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Biological Impacts of the Alternatives

7.2.1.2.3.7

Movement Between Sectors

This measure is primarily administrative and is not expected to have measureable impacts on
fishing mortality. No changes were made to this provision – the No Action alternative was
selected.
Selecting this option will not have direct impacts on non-groundfish stocks.

7.2.1.2.4 Reporting Requirements
This action proposes several modifications to reporting requirements. While none of these
requirements would be expected to have direct biological impacts, to the extent that they improve
the data collected for the fishery the assessment and consequently the management of the stocks
should improve. Specific measures are addressed and the improvements expected are described.
Note that this discussion does not include those measures specifically designed to improve
monitoring of sectors.

7.2.1.2.4.1

Option 2 – Area-Specific Reporting Requirements

Many groundfish species are assessed and monitored based on stock units that are based on
geographic areas. In order to assess these stocks, the catch data must be accurately assigned to the
correct stock area. The current system relies on an after-the-fact matching of catch locations
reported on Vessel Trip Reports (VTRs) to the landings information in the dealer database. Since
VTRs do not have to be submitted until 14 days after the end of the month (though this may
change in the future), and dealer reports are submitted weekly, there is a time lag before the
dealer catch can be assigned to a stock area. This makes timely monitoring of the proposed ACLs
difficult.
In addition, two separate papers have examined the accuracy of the VTR catch locations and
found it wanting (Palmer and Wigley 2007; Nies and Applegate 2007). Errors were found
primarily in trips that fish in multiple statistical areas on the same trip. Both papers noted that for
small stocks the errors could be important, though for stocks with larger catches the errors were
minor. The importance of the errors also depended on how the data are used. Errors were smaller
and thus not as important when assigning catch to stock area, but became more of a concern when
catch is assigned to smaller geographic areas.
This option should improve both the timeliness and accuracy of position information that is
available for quota monitoring. Because vessel operators will be required to notify NMFS of the
areas fished, and this information will be linked to VTRs and dealer reports, more timely
assignment of catches to stock areas will occur in the ACL monitoring process. As a result,
depending on the AM that is selected, it is less likely that catches will exceed an ACL and
approach an overfishing level. Even if in-season AMs are not adopted for this fishery, this
measure will allow a more timely evaluation of catches that will facilitate implementing the AM
at the beginning of the next fishing year.
Another possible benefit of this measure is that it may improve the accuracy of VTRs. Since there
will be a data source that reports fishing locations more frequently than VTRs, this can be used to
evaluate VTR accuracy and identify operators that may not be reporting correctly. Improving the

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

510

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Biological Impacts of the Alternatives

accuracy of VTR locations will improve the assignment of catch to stock area. Improvements in
data collection could provide more accurate stock assessments as a result.
Selecting this option will not have direct impacts on non-groundfish stocks.

7.2.1.2.4.2

Option 3 – Accounting for Discards by Non-Sector Vessels

This option provides mechanism to estimate discards in a timely fashion. This allows for a more
accurate assessment of catches while monitoring ACLs. This makes it less likely that ACLs will
be exceeded and overfishing will occur.
Two sub-options were considered for determining the discard rate that is applied to each trip. The
Proposed Action (Sub-option B) uses a discard rate based on the previous year’s fishing activity
if sufficient data is not available to calculate an in-season rate. The two advantages to this
approach are that the discard rates will be more current (no more than a year old) and will be
based on non-sector fishing activity. This should provide a more accurate estimate of discards,
assuming observer coverage of non-sector vessels is sufficient to provide a reasonable degree of
precision. The most accurate rates will be when sufficient data is available in-season to use an inseason rate, which this option also allows.
Selecting this option will not have direct impacts on non-groundfish stocks.

7.2.1.2.5 Commercial and Recreational Allocation for Certain Stocks
This action proposes a specific allocation to the commercial and recreational components of the
fishery (Option 2). Various time periods and stocks are considered for the allocation – while
selecting a specific stock determines which stocks may have biological impacts as a result of an
allocation, the different time periods are not expected to have direct impacts.
Establishing an allocation may provide for more effective management of fishing mortality. Since
each component will be responsible for a specific amount of the catch, management measures can
be designed to more effectively prevent overfishing. At present, no such distinction is made and
when reductions in fishing mortality are necessary, management measures are designed that
attempt to proportionally reduce fishing mortality on each component. While if effective this
should result in achieving mortality targets, this approach makes it difficult to isolate whether any
mortality overages are the responsibility of a particular component. An allocation will minimize
this problem, but will complicate the design of measures as mortality changes needed will be
calculated for each component.
Selecting this option will not have direct impacts on non-groundfish stocks.

7.2.1.2.6 Changes to the DAS Transfer and Leasing Programs

7.2.1.2.6.1

DAS Transfer Program Conservation Tax Change

This action modifies the DAS transfer program by removing the conservation tax on DAS
transfers (Option 2). The DAS transfer program was originally implemented in Amendment 13 to
promote consolidation in the groundfish fishery and to remove the potential redirection of effort
into other fisheries. The conservation tax was imposed to obtain some additional conservation and
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

511

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Biological Impacts of the Alternatives

removal of excess DAS. Since its inception the transfer program has undergone two changes
which lowered the conservation tax from 40 to 20 percent in 2005 and in 2006 allowed
purchasing vessels to acquire non-duplicate permits from the seller. To date, participation in the
DAS Transfer Program has been limited but increased between FY 2006 and FY 2007. There
were only 13 transactions during 2006 and 2007, making it difficult to draw any inferences
regarding trends or impacts. Nevertheless, the increase in transfers occurred after the program
was modified in 2006 to allow acquisition of permits from the seller, while there was little or no
response to the reduction in the transfer tax in 2005. If the ability to acquire additional permits
was the key factor making DAS transfers financially attractive, then removing the transfer tax
may not result in any notable increase in transfer activity. However, elimination of the transfer
tax may increase participation in the program if the tax was a disincentive. Eliminating the
transfer tax could effectively increase the current DAS allocations and increase the number of
DAS that the vessel may lease. It is difficult to predict participation in this voluntary program. To
date, nearly all DAS transferred under the program have been among vessels in the states of
Maine, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts. Therefore, groundfish species within the GOM will
likely be most affected by the Proposed Action.
In general, removal of the conservation tax would make the biological impact of
DAS transfer on groundfish no different than if the DAS were acquired through a lease.
The DAS reductions may result in a shortage of DAS which means that the biological impacts of
expanded use of the DAS transfer program may be expected to be limited. The scale of impacts to
fishing mortality is dependent upon the number of transfers that result from this Proposed Action
as well as where participating vessels fish. Further, it is likely that a major constraint that limits
DAS transfers for individual vessel owners (i.e., cost) will continue to limit the effort associated
with DAS transfers. The extent to which eliminating the conservation tax increases participation
in the program may result in positive biological impacts on other fisheries since at least some
limited access permits would be eliminated.
This measure considered two sub-options for the treatment of permits that have already
participated in the transfer program and were subject to the conservation tax. The Proposed
Action adopts sub-option A and does not return any DAS to permits that participated in the DAS
transfer program before adoption of this measure
Impacts on Other Species
If participation in the DAS transfer program increases as a result of this option being adopted,
there may be some reductions in the number of permits in other limited access fisheries. This
could result in reduced mortality in those fisheries as long as the remaining permit does not fish
harder than the permit that is terminated. This could result in reduced landings of monkfish, for
example. The impacts on species caught in open-access fisheries – primarily skates and spiny
dogfish – are less clear.

7.2.1.2.6.2 Eligibility of Permits in the CPH Category to Participate in the
Transfer and Leasing Programs
This action proposes to allow permits on the CPH (permit history) category to participate in the
DAS transfer and leasing programs. In theory this change should have no impact on fishing
mortality. Any permit that is in this category can be reactivated by placing it on a skiff, and then
the DAS can be transferred in either the leasing or transfer programs. While this is an
administrative burden for a permit holder, the reality is that the existing prohibition is not
absolute as nothing prevents a permit from being reactivated. In practice, however, the number of
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

512

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Biological Impacts of the Alternatives

permits in the CPH category indicates that not all permit holders are willing to bear the
administrative burden for the relatively small returns they may get from leasing, and so a small,
fluctuating number of DAS have remained unavailable to the fishery. By removing the need for a
permit holder to activate a permit before participating in the DAS leasing program, the
expectation is that more DAS will be available to the leasing market and this could result in a
marginal increase in fishing mortality when compared to the No Action alternative.

7.2.1.2.6.3

Removal of the DAS Leasing Cap

The Proposed Action removes the cap on the number of DAS that can be leased by a permit.
Amendment 13 limited the DAS that could be used by a vessel to its baseline allocation plus the
number of Category A DAS allocated prior to Amendment 13. With the reduction in DAS
adopted in this action, many permits would have been limited to a maximum of 112 days or
fewer. In order to fish more days than that, a permit holder would need to operate a second vessel,
with the additional costs involved.
From a biological standpoint, removing the cap on the number of DAS that a permit can lease
would be expected to increase fishing mortality. Removing the cap reduces the costs for a permit
holder that wants to fish additional DAS. No longer is it necessary to maintain and operate two
vessels in order to fish as many DAS as a permit holder can afford to acquire. Since participating
in the leasing program may lower costs, this could result in more DAS being exchanged and used
in the fishery.
An additional complication is that this change may modify the distribution of leased DAS. The
management measures for the non-sector vessels were designed using the CAM. The model
included leasing activity that was observed during the years used for the input data. But leasing
activity in those years was subject to a cap. If the patterns of leasing activity change as a result of
this measure then the model assumptions will not be valid. The impact of this measure is that it
makes it less certain that the management measures will achieve the changes in fishing mortality
estimated by the CAM. This may increase the chance that desired fishing mortality rates will be
exceeded.
The 50 percent reduction in Category A DAS, however, means there are not enough DAS
available for many vessels to exceed the leasing cap limits. With about 20,000 allocated DAS
(excluding carry-over DAS), there are only enough DAS available for 178 permits to use 112
DAS. The limited number of DAS available means that while the CAM assumption has been
violated, the consequences for estimating the biological impacts of effort controls may not be
large.
Impacts on Other Species
If participation in the DAS leasing program increases as a result of this option being adopted,
there may be impacts on other species. The impacts will depend on how leasing activity changes.
For example, this measure could result in more DAS being used to target monkfish in the
Northern Monkfish Management Area. The likely changes are impossible to predict. The impacts
on species caught in open-access fisheries – primarily skates and spiny dogfish – are less clear.

7.2.1.2.7 Special Management Programs

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

513

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Biological Impacts of the Alternatives

7.2.1.2.7.1

Closed Area I Hook Gear Haddock SAP

The proposed expansion of the season and area for the SAP (Option 2) are designed to increase
catches of GB haddock by hook gear. As a result, mortality of GB haddock is expected to
increase. Because the total catches of the target species are limited by TAC that is based on the
available exploitable biomass, this SAP is not expected to result in overfishing of GB haddock.
Longline gear also catches other species. Two stocks of interest in this area are GB cod and white
hake, both subject to formal rebuilding plans. The catch of GB cod species by non-sector vessels
in the SAP is limited by incidental catch TACs, while any catches of either species by sector
vessels will count against sector ACE. While white hake catches by non-sector vessels are not
limited by an incidental catch TAC, experimental results show few interactions with white hake.
For these reasons expansion of the SAP is not expected to result in overfishing for these two
stocks.
Further evidence that the expansion of the SAP will not be harmful to GB cod or white hake can
be determined by a review of longline experiments conducted from 2003 – 2005 that tested
selectively targeting haddock using specific baits. Correia (2008, Appendix III) explored these
issues in depth and this report forms the basis for the following discussion. He noted that the use
of the data from these experiments to examine the impacts of expansion of the SAP is subject to
several limitations. Analysis and interpretation of the data suffer because the sampling design was
not specifically developed to evaluate the SAPs expansion in time and space. Observed sets were
not randomly distributed (see Figure 127). There are temporal limitations for the availability of
the data and sets were not observed throughout the proposed time period: no sets were observed
in January, there is only one sample in August, and there are low numbers of samples in May and
July. The baits tested by area were heterogonous, particularly with respect to squid. These caveats
should be considered when reviewing the following discussion.
Using a trimmed data set and combining all baits and years, Correia (2008) concluded that catch
rates for haddock were similar in both the existing area and the proposed area for all months
except for May and June, where haddock catch rates may be higher. Catch rates for cod and
haddock were not higher in the proposed area than the current area in any month. The ratios of
cod:haddock kept and white hake:haddock kept were less than 5 percent both in the current and
proposed areas, and differences between the areas were not statistically different (Table 178).
Based on the analyses of these data, the expansion for the area in time and space is not expected
to result in increased catch rates of GB cod and white hake. It is likely that the number of trips to
the area will increase, and catches of GB cod and white hake in the area will increase as a result,
but the limitations of incidental catch TACs for non-sector vessels and ACE for sector vessels
will prevent any increases from threatening mortality targets. Caution should be exercised when
applying these conclusions to months or areas that wee not sampled.
Option 2 also modifies provisions that govern the participation of sector and non-sector vessels in
the SAP. These are not expected to affect fishing mortality.
Impacts on Other Species
Expanding the SAP in time and area may attract more fishing effort to the SAP. Skates of various
species, monkfish, and spiny dogfish are frequently caught on trips using longlines and were
caught on all trips in an experimental fishery used to evaluate the original SAP (see NEFMC
2004). Expanding opportunities for non-sector vessels to participate in this SAP may increase the
number of Category B DAS used and result in increased catches and mortality for these species.
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

514

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Biological Impacts of the Alternatives

This could be an issue for the skate stocks that are overfished and subject to rebuilding plans. In
the case of sector vessels, the SAP may not provide increased fishing opportunities since the
sectors will be limited by their catch of groundfish stocks whether caught inside or outside of the
SAP.

Figure 127 - Location of hauls used in the bait selectivity study (Figure provided by Cape Cod
Commercial Hook Fisherman’s Association). This represents haul locations in the full dataset. From
Correia (2008).

Table 178 - Ratio estimators of total white hake: haddock kept and total cod: haddock kept.,
Jackknife standard error (SE) and bias (in standard error units), and 95% confidence limits using
the Percentile method (1000 bootstrap replications) and the Bias Corrected and Accelerated method
(BCa) using 10,000 replications. From Correia (2008)
Species
Area
Ratio
Jackknife
Jackknife
95% CL
95% CL
estimator
SE
bias
percentile
BCa method
(CV)
(SE units)
method
Total white
Inside
0.013
0.0016
0.013
0.010
0.016
0.010 0.016
hake
(12.3%)
Proposed
0.013
0.0024
0.004
0.009
0.018
0.009 0.019
(18.2%)
Total cod
Inside
0.021
0.0027
0.012
0.016
0.026
0.016 0.027
(13.2%)
Proposed
0.014
0.0026
0.016
0.009
0.019
0.010 0.020
(18.7%)
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

515

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Biological Impacts of the Alternatives

For decades, the closed areas on Georges Bank - including CA I - have been recognized as
important to groundfish spawning, particularly for cod, haddock, and yellowtail flounder. The
two areas were first established as seasonal spawning closures under ICNAF. They continued to
be used as spawning closures – primarily to protect cod and haddock - under the groundfish plan
until they became year round closed areas in 1994. Prior to their establishment as year round
closed areas, however, scallop dredge fishing was allowed in the seasonal spawning closures.
Closed area access programs since 1997 limited scallop dredge access to periods outside of peak
spawning periods, and a similar restriction was recently submitted by the Council in Scallop
Framework Adjustment 16.
Observed spawning periods are described in the Essential Fish Habitat source documents for each
species. For many species, there is a wide range of possible spawning months, but there is also a
distinct peak when most spawning activity occurs. The general pattern is for spawning to occur in
the southern part of the range for a species earlier in the year, and then move north. For most
groundfish species, spawning takes place during the first half of the calendar year. Peak
spawning for witch flounder and yellowtail flounder is in the middle of the year. Peak spawning
for ocean pout occurs in the fall, while for Atlantic halibut it occurs in November and December.
Spawning periods for groundfish stocks were summarized in FW 40B (NEFMC 2004b). GB cod
spawning occurs from October through June, with peak spawning activity in February and March.
GB haddock spawning occurs from January through June, with peak periods in March and April.
The proposed expansion of the season for this SAP includes spawning months for both of these
stocks but avoids the peak spawning months that have been identified. This is less of a concern
for GB cod given the low catch rates expected.

7.2.1.2.7.2

Eastern U.S./Canada Haddock SAP

This SAP provides an opportunity to use Category B DAS, and to fish in part of CAII, to target
GB haddock in the Eastern U.S./Canada area. Authorization for the SAPA expires on April 30,
2008, though a proposed interim rule is considering a temporary extension.
The Proposed Action (Option 2) extends this SAP indefinitely. Catches for GB haddock might
increase compared to Option 1, but if recent experience is any guide this is likely to be a marginal
increase as few vessels have taken the opportunity to use the SAP. Catches in the SAP apply
against the Eastern U.S./Canada haddock TAC and thus the catches are unlikely to result in
overfishing for this stock. Even though the SAP requires use of gear designed to avoid cod and
other stocks of concern, extending the SAP may increase discards of GB cod since there is
evidence the gear does not work as well in the commercial fishery as in experiments (see section
6.2.3.6). Catches of GB cod in the SAP apply against the Eastern U.S./Canada GB cod TAC and
thus the catches are unlikely to result in overfishing for this stock.
Selecting this option will not have direct impacts on non-groundfish stocks. The gear used in the
SAP is designed to avoid monkfish and skates.

7.2.1.2.7.3

CA II Yellowtail Flounder SAP

The Proposed Action (Option 2) modifies this SAP so that access to CAII is allowed to access
GB haddock. In years when the SAP is open to target GB yellowtail flounder the rules for the
SAP remain the same as adopted by Amendment 13 and modified by subsequent frameworks.
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

516

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Biological Impacts of the Alternatives

The SAP includes limits on the number of trips, gear requirements, and number of trips that can
be taken each month; vessels would be subject to all of these provisions until the SAP is closed to
fishing for GB yellowtail flounder. The biological impacts would be the same as previously
described, and would be the same as the No Action alternative. When the SAP is not open to
target GB yellowtail, either because of a lack of availability of GB yellowtail flounder or because
the SAP was closed because the number of trips allowed is reached, the regulations may be
modified so that the SAP was open from August 1 – January 31 to target GB haddock. Catches of
GB haddock from the SAP apply against the Eastern U.S./Canada haddock TAC and as a result
the area would be closed if the TAC is achieved. For this reason the SAP is not expected to result
in overfishing of the eastern component of GB haddock, and would not lead to overfishing of the
entire stock. Current regulations that implemented Amendment 13, however, include a provision
that allows fishing in this SAP even if the TAC for EGB cod or GB yellowtail founder is caught.
This creates a possibility that allowing the SAP to take place in these circumstances could lead to
exceeding the U.S./Canada TAC for these stocks. This possibility can be avoided if NMFS
exercises other regulatory authority by making in-season adjustments to the regulations to keep
enough of these TACs available so that catches in the SAP do not exceed the TACs. This may
prove difficult to do since the regulations also say such changes should give priority to fishing on
a Category A DAS. This problem is likely to only occur for non-sector vessels if sector vessels
receive specific allocations for this area.
Other species can be expected to be encountered when fishing in this area. The only year the
CAII SAP has been open was in FY 2004. Measures in effect allowed the use of a flounder net,
and the purpose of the trips was to target yellowtail flounder. Appendix II of FW 42 summarized
catches and revenues for 307 identified trips in the SAP; information below is taken from that
report. Table 179 shows that the majority of the kept catch in the SAP was yellowtail flounder,
haddock, skates, winter flounder, or monkfish. During years when the SAP is open for targeting
yellowtail flounder the kept catch composition is likely to be similar to that shown here.
When the SAP is not open for targeting yellowtail flounder gear requirements are imposed that
are designed to minimize the catches of cod, flounders, skates, and other bottom-dwelling
species. These gears include the haddock separator trawl, the Ruhle trawl, and longline gear.
These gears are expected to dramatically reduce the catches of these species. Table 181
summarizes the performance of the proposed trawl gear configurations in experimental fisheries,
while section 6.2.3.6 summarizes observed performance of the separator trawl in the commercial
fishery. While experimental performance of these gears documents large reductions in catches of
flounders, the experience in the commercial fishery has not been as impressive. Table 93
summarizes observed ratios of haddock to cod, skates, yellowtail flounder, and winter flounder on
observed tows using a separator trawl. There were dramatic improvements in the ratios in 2007,
but prior to this year the ratios were on the order of 5:1 for cod, yellowtail flounder, winter
flounder, and monkfish. There aren’t any observed trips using the Ruhle trawl or five-point trawl
in the commercial fishery for comparison to the experimental data.
While the gear requirements may drastically reduce catches of species other than haddock, it is
not likely to eliminate them and the gear may not perform as well in the fishery as in experiments.
Catches of GB yellowtail flounder in the SAP are also controlled by the GB yellowtail flounder
U.S./Canada area TAC so any SAP catches will not contribute to overfishing this resource.
Timing of the SAP may also reduce yellowtail flounder catches, as the experience during the SAP
in 2004 was that discards of yellowtail flounder (primarily small fish) declined in July and
August when compared to June – starting the haddock SAP in August may reduce yellowtail
flounder encounters. Catches of other groundfish stocks by sector vessels will be limited by
sector ACE and as a result will also not lead to overfishing the resource. Catches of other
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

517

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Biological Impacts of the Alternatives

groundfish stocks by non-sector vessels are not expected to lead to overfishing because of the
gear requirements in this SAP.
Impacts on Other Species
The proposed changes to the SAP are not likely to increase catches of skates, monkfish, and spiny
dogfish. When the SAP was open in 2004 skates and monkfish were caught in the SAP area. The
proposed revisions, however, require the use of trawl gear that if fished correctly is unlikely to
catch skates or monkfish in appreciable quantities.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

518

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Biological Impacts of the Alternatives
Table 179 - Pounds reported kept on 307 trips identified as CAII Yellowtail Flounder SAP Trips, FY
2004
Month Landed
SPPNAME
June
July
August
September
Total
BARNDOOR SKATE
BLACK SEA BASS
1,325
100
1,425
BLUEFISH
110
110
CLEARNOSE SKATE WINGS
1,260
1,260
COD
17,782
6,163
2,766
20
26,731
CUSK
10
10
FLOUNDER, AMERICAN PLAICE
106,938
39,349
21,971
3,305
171,563
/DAB
FLOUNDER, WINDOWPANE
125
30
70
225
FLOUNDER, SPECIES NOT
2,870
2,870
SPECIFIED
FLOUNDER, SUMMER / FLUKE
2,382
2,419
5,250
2,545
12,596
FLOUNDER, WINTER / BLACKBACK
295,096
110,383
161,111
55,690
622,280
FLOUNDER, WITCH / GRAY SOLE
118,228
70,375
37,604
300
226,507
FLOUNDER, YELLOWTAIL
2,816,400
2,810,365
2,255,008
194,205 8,075,978
HADDOCK
594,479
415,645
31,690
269 1,042,083
HAKE, MIX RED / WHITE, ROUND
8
5
13
HAKE, RED / LING
560
240
800
HAKE, SILVER / WHITING
80
2,978
3,058
HAKE, WHITE
50
10
5
65
HALIBUT, ATLANTIC
185
185
LITTLE SKATE
LITTLE SKATE WINGS
4,385
4,385
LOBSTER, AMERICAN
16,404
73,083
49,813
19,996
159,296
MACKEREL, ATLANTIC
400
400
MONK LIVERS
955
665
600
2,220
MONK TAILS
46,859
40,589
36,190
20,870
144,508
MONKFISH / ANGLERFISH /
32,884
41,501
33,740
17,715
125,840
POLLOCK
129
30
8,685
8,844
REDFISH / OCEAN PERCH
5,500
5,200
10,700
SCALLOP, SEA
48,146
27,527
23,902
5,931
105,506
SCALLOPS/SHELLS
400
400
SCUP / PORGY
200
200
SHARK, PORBEAGLE
150
150
SKATE UNCLASSIFIED
279,340
93,455
79,730
39,625
492,150
SKATE WINGS UNCLASSIFIED
78,301
68,375
48,586
37,050
232,312
SQUID / ILLEX
280
280
SQUID / LOLIGO
50
50
STARFISH
20,200
20,200
WINTER SKATE
WINTER SKATE WINGS
3,850
4,050
1,285
6,875
16,060
WOLFFISH / OCEAN CATFISH
10
75
85
Grand Total
4,485,221
3,813,124
2,808,004
404,996 11,511,345

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

519

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Biological Impacts of the Alternatives

7.2.1.2.7.4

SNE/MA Winter Flounder SAP

This action proposes to end this SAP, which allows landing up to 200 pounds of winter flounder
without using a DAS on trips west of 72-30W longitude. This SAP was adopted by Amendment
13 and was designed to reduce the discards of winter flounder that occurred on fluke trips in this
area. At the time of its adoption, the fishing mortality rate for this stock was expected to be lower
than the rebuilding fishing mortality. The low levels of catch allowed were not expected to
increase targeting of SNE/MA winter flounder. Since its adoption the need to reduce SNE/MA
winter flounder fishing mortality to as close to 0 as possible makes this SAP inconsistent with
rebuilding goals.
Because SAP trips are not specifically identified in the available databases, the magnitude of
participation in this SAP is unknown. Data used to estimate the economic impacts of the SAP
(see section 7.5.1.2.7.4) identified trips that met the criteria of this program landed less than
85,000 pounds of winter flounder in each year from CY 2003 through CY 2007. This is less than
3 percent of the recent commercial landings for this stock and is about one percent of total
removals. Under the No Action option, these catches would likely continue.
Prohibiting this SAP, however, is not likely to reduce removals of winter flounder by this
percentage. As shown in section 7.5.1.2.7.4, winter flounder revenues are only a small portion of
the revenues on the trips that met the SAP criteria. It is likely that the result of this measure is that
these winter flounder will be discarded rather than landed. The assessment assumes a fifty percent
survival rate for trawl-caught winter flounder. At best, this measure may reduce winter flounder
removals by less than one percent. While eliminating the SAP technically reduces fishing
mortality the results will not be measureable.
Recent commercial discards for this stock have ranged from 100-150 mt. A 20 mt increase in
commercial discard mortality as a result of this measure represents a 13 – 20 percent increase in
commercial discards. While this appears to be a large relative increase, it is likely to be dwarfed
by other proposed measures that prohibit retention of SNE/MA winter flounder.
Selecting this option will not have direct impacts on non-groundfish stocks. Fishing activity is not
likely to change in ways that will change catches of skates, monkfish, or spiny dogfish.

7.2.1.2.7.5

Category B (regular) DAS Program

The Proposed Action (Option 2) modifies the Category B (regular) DAS program to eliminate the
opportunity to use the program to target pollock. Pollock catches in this program were
approximately 550 mt in CY 2007 (see section 6.2.3.5) and are estimated at 770 mt in CY 2008
(Daniel Caless, NMFS NERO, 2009 pers comm.). Eliminating the ability to target pollock in this
program will reduce pollock fishing mortality and the reductions necessary from the Category A
DAS measures. In 2008, the pollock catch on this program was 9 percent of the U.S. catch.
Eliminating the ability to target pollock in this program means that the effort controls – which are
based on Category A DAS – must achieve 91 percent of the necessary change in exploitation, or a
reduction of 53 percent.
Another modification to the program allows the use of a six-inch diamond or square codend while
using the required selective trawl gear (separator trawl, Ruhle trawl, or other approved trawl).
This will facilitate the targeting of haddock in the program. Recent mesh experiments have
demonstrated that a 6.5 inch diamond or square mesh codend is not an efficient way to catch
haddock (He et al 2005; Figure 128). The ineffectiveness of this mesh has been exacerbated by
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

520

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Biological Impacts of the Alternatives

the slow growth of the 2003 year class of haddock. As a result, considerable haddock yield has
been inaccessible to U.S. fishermen. Allowing the use of a smaller mesh codend will increase
catches of haddock. This may result increased targeting of this stock if it makes trips more
profitable. The likely result is that the fishing mortality for haddock will increase. While there is
room for considerable growth in GB haddock catches, there is room for only a relatively small
increase in GOM haddock catches. Program reporting and monitoring requirements allow NMFS
to adopt in-season measures if necessary to limit GOM haddock catches.
Reducing the minimum mesh size for codends will likely result in retention of some fish smaller
than the current 19 inch minimum size or the proposed 18 inch minimum size. Approximately 25
percent of 19 inch fish encountering the gear are expected to be retained in 6 inch diamond mesh,
while approximately 20 percent of 18 inch fish would be retained by the same mesh. This is
roughly twice the percentage offish at either size that would be expected to be retained by 6.5
inch diamond mesh. This will result in increased discards compared to the current mesh
requirements at either minimum size. While not plotted here, discards would be lower in 6 inch
square mesh than in 6 inch diamond mesh.
The change in mesh size is not expected to have increase fishing mortality on most other
groundfish species. First, the selective gear used in the program is designed to avoid most stocks
that need reductions in fishing mortality, such as cod, yellowtail flounder, winter flounder, and
skates. This is not the case for pollock; the selective gear used in this program does not reduce
pollock catches. Indeed, section 6.2.3.5 and 6.2.3.6 present information that suggests that the
haddock separator trawl (one of the authorized trawl configurations) has been used to target
pollock. As it result, it should not be expected that the gear will exclude pollock, and there may
be a marginal increase in pollock catch rates because of the use of the smaller mesh codend.
Second, the catches of groundfish species in this program are limited by an incidental catch TAC.
This incidental catch TAC for pollock is the control that is likely to prevent the program from
increasing pollock mortality.
Selecting this option will not have direct impacts on non-groundfish stocks. Fishing activity is not
likely to change in ways that will change catches of skates, monkfish, or spiny dogfish.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

521

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Biological Impacts of the Alternatives
Figure 128 – Trawl selectivity for haddock (based on He at al 2005). Note minimum size is converted
to fork length for plotting to be consistent with selectivity curve.

Trawl Selectivity (Haddock)
1
6 in. dia.

Probability of Retention

6.5 dia.
6.5 sq.

0.75

19 inch
18 inch
0.5

0.25

0
25

Fork Length (cm)

7.2.1.2.8 Periodic Adjustment Process
The proposed changes to the periodic adjustment process are administrative measures and are not
expected to have direct biological impacts on either groundfish or non-groundfish species. The
impacts are similar to the No Action alternative.

7.2.1.2.9 Simultaneous Possession of a Limited Access Multispecies and
Scallop Permit
The impacts of this measure on groundfish fishing mortality are unclear. The measure does not
create additional groundfish effort: the pool of available groundfish DAS remains the same. At
present, however, a large number of the allocated DAS are not used. If this measures results in
scallop vessels acquiring groundfish permits, using the attached DAS, and increasing the
percentage of DAS that are used, then fishing mortality might increase on groundfish stocks.
While the design of effort controls is based on the number of allocated DAS, the input data for
the CAM is based in part on recent fishing activity and if this measure results in changes to that
activity model impacts are less certain.
There may also be distributional effects that are difficult to estimate. Many scallop vessels fish
out of southern New England or Mid-Atlantic ports. If these vessels acquire groundfish permits
and change the area where the accompanying groundfish DAS are fished, fishing mortality rates
could be affected. The analysis in section 7.5.1.2.9 indicates that this measure may result in a
transfer of groundfish permits from New England states to mid-Atlantic states. If this occurs there
may be a shift in fishing effort away from the GOM to the GB and SNE areas. But such an effort
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

522

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Biological Impacts of the Alternatives

shift is not easy to predict. Scallop fishing is managed through a rotational management system. It
could be that mid-Atlantic based scallop fishing vessels that acquire a groundfish permit may
only fish on groundfish when scallop management areas on GB are open. They may take
advantage of the groundfish permit only when scallop activity takes them to the region where
groundfish are abundant. These possible shifts in groundfish fishing effort could not be included
in the CAM.
Complicating this picture, however, is that it is unclear how vessel owners will react to this
measure. For example, if a groundfish vessel owner acquires a scallop permit and as a result
spends less time groundfish fishing, groundfish fishing mortality may be reduced. The same
could be true if a scallop vessel owner acquired a groundfish permit and does not fish as hard as
the prior owner, or targets different stocks.
Impacts on Other Species
It is difficult to predict the impacts of this measure on skates, monkfish, and spiny dogfish. Skates
and monkfish are caught by both groundfish and scallop gear. Allowing a vessel to possess both a
scallop and groundfish permit may result in fewer vessels as permits are consolidated on one
vessel. Whether this results in increased or decreased catches of the non-groundfish species
depends on the fishing activity of the permits before they are combined compared to activity after
they are combined.

7.2.1.2.10

Catch History

This measure prevents catch history from accruing after implementation of Amendment 16. This
is an administrative measure and is not expected to have direct impacts on fishing mortality.

7.2.1.3

Measures to Meet Mortality Objectives

This section addresses the biological impacts of a series of proposed management measures that
are intended to control fishing mortality. There are three broad categories: commercial measures,
recreational measures, and measures that apply to both components of the fishery. The
commercial category includes effort control alternatives for non-sector vessels, implementation of
additional sectors, and accountability measures. Within the recreational category are specific
measures to control recreational harvest and accountability measures. Both components would be
subject to a change in the minimum size for Atlantic halibut and a prohibition on retaining
Atlantic wolffish.

7.2.1.3.1 Commercial Fishery Measures

7.2.1.3.1.1

Option 3A – 24 – Hour Clock and Restricted Gear Areas

Impacts on Groundfish Species
Option 3A changes the way DAS are counted. All DAS on all trips are counted as a 24-hour day,
rather than by the minute as under existing regulations. In addition, this option reduces Category
A DAS allocations, adjusts trip limits for most stocks, and adopts restricted gear areas. Analysis
in the CAM suggests this alternative will achieve at least the targeted mortality reductions for all
stocks with the exception of SNE/MA winter flounder and Northern windowpane flounder.
Indeed, with the additional exception of SNE/MA yellowtail flounder, the CAM results show that
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

523

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Biological Impacts of the Alternatives

the expected exploitation reductions will far exceed those required to achieve the mortality
targets. The CAM results may not fully capture the mortality reductions for these stocks. In the
case of Northern windowpane flounder, most of the catch is discarded. This limits the data
available to the CAM and thus may not completely capture the changes in exploitation that will
result.
Although the model results indicate that the reduction in exploitation of the northern stock of
windowpane flounder would not be sufficient to bring the fishing mortality down to a theoretical
Freb, the CAM indicates that exploitation will be reduced about 86 percent of that necessary to
achieve the rebuilding target. In contrast to many other stocks in the complex, this stock is
principally a bycatch species, with landings representing only 12 % of the catch in calendar year
2007 (Catch: 1,032 mt, Landings: 119 mt; GARM III). Because this stock is principally a
bycatch species with relatively low catch already, additional reductions in fishing exploitation
may be very difficult to achieve through reductions in fishing effort. Since 2000, most of the
landings have occurred in statistical area 525, south-central Georges Bank, and the bycatch of this
stock is likely higher during winter and spring when the species is distributed across a broader
area of Georges Bank. Most of the discards are in the large-mesh bottom trawl fishery. The
prohibition of retention of windowpane north will eliminate landings and eliminate any incentive
to target this stock. The GARM III report included these comments by reviewers that highlight
the uncertainty over this projection: “Given that current catch is mostly incidental and also given
the high uncertainty of index-based assessments, it was concluded that it was not appropriate to
calculate Frebuild for this stock.” This action does not adopt a specific Frebuild for this stock
because of the scientific advice.
With respect to SNE/MA winter flounder the CAM indicates this option achieves a 67 percent
reduction in exploitation when a 100 percent reduction is targeted. While some additional
reduction may result from the elimination of the SNE/MA winter flounder SAP (section
7.2.1.2.7.4) this will not completely eliminate catches of this stock. Since winter flounder is
caught in other fisheries (small mesh, fluke, and scallop) the only way to eliminate all
exploitation on this stock is to prohibit all fishing in the stock area. The Council does not consider
it reasonable to forfeit all yields from other stocks for a marginal shortening of the rebuilding
program for this stock. A proposed interim action (74 FR 2959) considers closing an extensive
area to the use of groundfish DAS. According to the supporting EA, that approach achieves only
a marginal improvement in the reduction in exploitation (82 percent vice the 67percent shown
here) and results in reduced yield from fisheries.
With respect to pollock, this action proposes to eliminate the ability to target pollock on a
Category B DAS program. In 2008, pollock catches in the Category B DAS program were 9
percent of U.S. removals. These effort controls thus need to achieve 91 percent of the needed
reduction for pollock, or a 66 percent reduction in exploitation.
The CAM model results also do not include the impacts of restricted gear areas and the gear
requirements imposed for those areas. A number of experiments have tested the trawl gears
proposed for these areas. The results are summarized in Table 181. Note that not all of the
experiments have been subject to a peer review or published. Several of the gears show dramatic
reductions in the catches of flounders and other bottom-dwelling species. These reductions would
be in addition to the reductions estimated by the CAM. AS an example, the catches of SNE/MA
winter flounder within the RGAs would be expected to be almost completely eliminated if the
gear performs in the commercial fishery as well as it did in experiments.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

524

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Biological Impacts of the Alternatives

In contrast to the No Action alternative, this option is likely to reduce discards of GOM and GB
cod, CC/GOM yellowtail and SNE/MA yellowtail flounder, white hake, and GB winter flounder.
The option either increases or removes trip limits for these stocks, which should reduce
regulatory discards.
Table 180 – Option 3A changes in exploitation
Spec

AREA

COD
COD
HADDOCK
HADDOCK
WINTER
WINTER
WINTER
PLAICE
WITCH
WHK
WIND
WIND
YTF
YTF
YTF
POLLOCK
REDFISH
WINDOWPANE
WINDOWPANE

GBANK
GM
GBANK
GM
GBANK
GM
SNEMA
ALL
ALL
ALL
NORTH
SOUTH
CCGOM
GBANK
SNEMA
ALL
ALL
GOM/GB
SNE/MA

Needed
Difference

Option 3A
Action
%
Difference

-50%
-37%
202%
24%
48%

-54%
-52%
-53%
-54%
-52%
-45%
-67%
-56%
-56%
-63%
-59%
-61%
-57%
-59%
-39%
-61%
-62%
-59%
-61%

-100%
39%
-46%
28%

-34%
-15%
-39%
-66%
271%

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

525

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Biological Impacts of the Alternatives
Table 181 – Summary of gears proposed for restricted gear areas
Species

Separator Trawl

Eliminator/
RuhleTrawl

Five-Point
Trawl

Raised
Footrope
Trawl

TieDown
Gillnets

Rope
Trawl

Number of
Reports/Experiments/
Publications

5 (2 foreign, 3 U.S.)

None

Peer reviewed?

Yes

RSC Comments

(1) One experiment
had design
problems, serious
report flaws
(2) Second report
was useful,
thorough.
Information
provided “would
add to the body of
work on separator
trawl as well as
provide ancillary
information that
could be useful in
management
decision-making.”

Report well done
and organized;
experiment
successfully
demonstrated a
net design that
allowed the
harvest of
haddock while
reducing cod
catches as well
as the catch of
other stocks of
concern.

None

Report
welldone;
some
concerns
over
skewed
and
variable
data

Metric Presented

Expected Reduction

Experimental
Catch/Control
Catch

Expected
Reduction

Cod

60% - 80%

0.19

0.42

61%

1.14 (NS)

0.02

16%

Haddock

None

Pollock

Small

1.62 (NS)

White Hake

Large

0.08

Witch Flounder

Large

0.07

0.05

97%

Plaice

Large

0.01

0.00

97%

Winter Flounder

97%

0.06

0.00

96%

Yellowtail Flounder

Large

0.10

0.01

99%

0.05

0.02

0.05

0.01

0.12

0.02

Windowpane
Flounder
Redfish
Halibut
Monkfish

99%

Lobsters
Skates

99%

0.01

526

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Biological Impacts of the Alternatives

limit is likely to increase fishing mortality from these permits. The Handgear A trip limit is nearly
as large as the FW 42 trip limit for limited access vessels (800 pounds). As shown in 6.2.3.3.1,
the number of Handgear B permits landing groundfish has increased and the landings of
groundfish increased from 68,427 pounds in FY 2004 to over 150,000 pounds in FY 2007. The
number of Handgear A permits landing groundfish declined from 44 in FY 2004 to 23 in FY
2007, and landings have fluctuated with a declining trend over the last four years. Even with this
increases, these two permit categories only account for a small fraction of total groundfish
landings.
While the Handgear A permit category is limited access, the Handgear B category is not. It is
possible that the increases in trip limits will attract more effort to these two categories in the
GOM. Some limited access permit holders that do not have any Category A DAS may even
decide to relinquish their limited access permit and fish with a Handgear B permit, increasing
fishing effort albeit with a relatively inefficient gear. While the CAM suggests that the limited
access measures will exceed the needed reduction in exploitation and a small increase in handgear
permit catches could be accommodated, catches will need to be monitored to ensure that
mortality objectives are no threatened.
Impacts on Other Species
Because this option reduces groundfish DAS and changes the way DAS are counted, catches
(both landings and discards) of skates, monkfish, and spiny dogfish while fishing on groundfish
DAS would be expected to decline as compared to the No Action alternative. Counter-acting this
tendency is that some vessel owners may choose to increase fishing activity in the open-access
fisheries of skates and spiny dogfish to make up for lost groundfish revenue. There are only
limited opportunities to catch these species outside the groundfish DAS system, though, so it is
unlikely that the overall catch of these species will increase if this measure is adopted. In the case
of monkfish, monkfish landings may decline because of the different allocations and counting
methods used for monkfish and groundfish DAS (see section 7.7.6 for an expanded discussion of
this issue).

7.2.1.3.1.2 Comparison of the Biological Impacts of Effort Control
Options
There are several difficulties in comparing the biological impacts on groundfish of the effort
control alternatives. First, all options were designed and evaluated as if all permits remain subject
to effort controls and no permits join sectors. Since there are seventeen additional sectors that
have requested authority to operate, this is unlikely, but how different sector membership
composition affects the biological impacts of the effort control alternatives is unknown. It is
possible some permit holders may base their decision to join a sector on the choice of an effort
control alternative. This means that there is more uncertainty over the impacts of the effort
control measures than when analyzed in previous management actions. Second, there are some
elements of the options that cannot be reliably quantified. For example, the use of restricted gear
areas in two of the options may result in additional changes in fishing mortality but the magnitude
and direction are uncertain. These elements make it difficult to compare the alternatives. Option
2A is the option that is most similar to options considered in earlier actions, but even this option
modifies the way DAS are counted for differential DAS areas and is difficult to analyze in the
CAM. Option 3A uses a 24-hour clock, another measure that the CAM can only approximate.
Finally, two of the options will need to be modified to meet pollock rebuilding requirements.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

527

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Biological Impacts of the Alternatives

Keeping in mind these caveats, Table 182 summarizes the changes in exploitation expected to be
achieved by the four effort control alternatives. The No Action alternative reduces fishing
mortality the least of the alternatives and would not be expected to meet rebuilding requirements
for GB cod, SNE/MA winter flounder, witch flounder, northern windowpane flounder, SNE/MA
yellowtail flounder, or pollock. None of the other alternatives will eliminate fishing mortality on
SNE/MA winter flounder, but all are expected to reduce fishing mortality to less than F=0.10.
Options 2A and 4A will require modifications to meet the pollock rebuilding target. All options
are expected to greatly reduce mortality on northern windowpane flounder but a rebuilding target
cannot be calculated so it is not clear that rebuilding objectives for this stock will be met. All the
options meet all other rebuilding targets. Based on the CAM results, Option 3A appears to have
the greatest likelihood of achieving rebuilding objectives but it must be remembered that the 24hour clock in this option is difficult to evaluate in the CAM. The overall conclusion is that with
the exception of the impacts on pollock, there is little difference between the biological impacts
on groundfish of the three alternatives when compared to the No Action option.
Table 182 – Summary of changes in exploitation expected from effort control options
Species
AREA
Needed
No
Option 2A Option 3A
Option 4
Difference
Action
Action
Action
Action
%
%
%
%
Difference Difference Difference Difference
COD
COD
HADDOCK
HADDOCK
WINTER
WINTER
WINTER
PLAICE
WITCH
WHK
WIND
WIND
YTF
YTF
YTF
POLLOCK
REDFISH

GBANK
GM
GBANK
GM
GBANK
GM
SNEMA
ALL
ALL
ALL
NORTH
SOUTH
CCGOM
GBANK
SNEMA
ALL
ALL

7.2.1.3.1.3

-50%
-19%
290%
59%
51%
-100%
83%
-42%
28%

-16%
-15%
-39%
-66%
368%

-17%
-16%
-19%
-18%
-19%
-15%
-20%
-16%
-16%
-17%
-19%
-21%
-18%
-20%
-18%
-17%
-18%

-51%
-22%
-45%
-22%
-34%
-14%
-73%
-38%
-36%
-40%
-30%
-44%
-39%
-32%
-55%
-40%
-41%

-54%
-52%
-53%
-54%
-52%
-45%
-67%
-56%
-56%
-63%
-59%
-61%
-57%
-59%
-39%
-61%
-62%

-41%
-34%
-42%
-39%
-36%
-35%
-60%
-36%
-37%
-39%
-43%
-56%
-47%
-41%
-45%
-38%
-39%

SNE/MA Small Mesh Fisheries Gear Requirements

Impact on Groundfish Species
The Proposed Action adopts Option 1, the No Action alternative, and does not make any changes
to existing trawl gear requirements in the SNE area for other fisheries that may encounter
groundfish. GARM III assessments provided estimates of discards by otter trawl vessels for these
two stocks. For SNE/MA yellowtail flounder discard estimates were developed for large and
small mesh trawls, but small mesh is defined as less than 5.5 inches in the assessment. Between
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

528

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Biological Impacts of the Alternatives

1996 and 2007, discards of SNE/MA yellowtail flounder in small mesh trawls ranged between 12
-19 mt but the CV associated with these estimates is generally high. In comparison, discards by
large mesh trawls during the same period ranged from 0 to 271 mt (again, with generally high
CVs). Small mesh discards were about three percent of removals in 2006 and about 1 percent of
removals in 2007 (GARM III). It is not possible to refine the GARM III estimates to identify the
discards taken by meshes between 5.5 and 6.5 inches. SNE/MA winter flounder discard estimates
did not differentiate by mesh size. For the same years discards ranged from 38 – 230 mt; since
2002, CVs for these estimates have been less than 30 percent. Otter trawl discards were 11.5
percent of SNE/MA winter flounder removals in 2006 and 9 percent of removals in 2007.
It is likely that fish caught by smaller meshes are smaller than those caught in the larger mesh.
The relative weight of discards may hide the fact that in terms of numbers, the discards by smaller
mesh may be more important than indicated by weight alone. To illustrate the different sizes of
fish caught by the different meshes, observed lengths were examined. For this analysis, large
mesh trawls were defined as trawls using a codend of 6.25 inches or larger. This value was
chosen rather than 6.5 inches to account for uncertainty in measuring mesh size. Figure 129
shows the length distributions of observed winter flounder caught by trawl vessels in the
SNE/MA winter flounder stock area. Large mesh trawls tend to catch slightly larger winter
flounder than trawls using codends that are smaller than 6.25 inches. This is most obvious when
the observations are viewed as a percent of the measured fish, where it is more easily seen that
small mesh trawls catch a higher percent of fish less than 31 cm. Reducing catches of winter
flounder by small mesh trawls should reduce catches of smaller fish. While the distribution for
SNE/MA yellowtail flounder is similar, the shift of the length frequency distribution to smaller
fish with the smaller mesh is not as pronounced (Figure 130).
Clearly, trawl vessels using mesh of less than 6.25 inches catch winter flounder and yellowtail
flounder and the catches consist of smaller fish than those caught in the larger mesh. While the
weights of the catch cannot be determined for mesh less than 6.25 inches from the GARM III
assessments they probably a small, but not inconsequential, part of the removals for both stocks.
These removals would continue under No Action.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

529

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Biological Impacts of the Alternatives
Figure 129 – Observed lengths of SNE/MA winter flounder, CY 2002 - 2008
SNE/MA Winter Flounder
Observed Lengths (Trawl)
3000

Number of Measured Fish

2500

2000

LARGE
SMALL

1500

1000

500

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77

0
Length (cm.)

SNE/MA Winter Flounder
Observed Lengths (Trawl)
10.00%

9.00%

8.00%

Percent of Measured Fish

7.00%

6.00%
LARGE
SMALL

5.00%

4.00%

3.00%

2.00%

1.00%

0.00%
Length (cm.)

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

530

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Biological Impacts of the Alternatives

Figure 130 - Observed lengths of SNE/MA yellowtail flounder, CY 2002 - 2008
SNE/MA Yellowtail Flounder
Observed Lengths (trawl)
450

400

Number of Measured Fish

350

300

250
LARGE
SMALL
200

150

100

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70

0
Legnth (cm.)

SNE/MA Yellowtail Flounder
Observed Lengths (trawl)
9.00%

8.00%

Percent of Measured Fish

7.00%

6.00%

5.00%
LARGE
SMALL
4.00%

3.00%

2.00%

1.00%

0.00%
Legnth (cm.)

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

531

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Biological Impacts of the Alternatives

Figure 131 – Observed discard locations for SNE/MA winter flounder, CY 2002 - 2008

7.2.1.3.1.4

GOM Haddock Sink Gillnet Pilot Program

Impacts on Groundfish Species
The Proposed Action (Option 2) establishes a pilot program to facilitate targeting GOM haddock
by sink gillnet vessels. This pilot program is designed to increase the ability of sink gillnet
fishermen to target haddock in the Gulf of Maine. Throughout the recent history of the
multispecies FMP, the minimum mesh size for sink gillnets and trawl codends has been the same.
A recent experiment (Marciano et al. 2005) provided selectivity information for cod, pollock, and
haddock (see Figure 132). These experiments confirm that gillnet gear tend to catch larger fish
than trawl gear of the same nominal mesh size. While the haddock selectivity curves are less
robust than those for cod and pollock (due to lower experimental sample sizes), it is clear that few
haddock are likely to be caught with gillnets of the current minimum size and a reduced mesh
size might improve the ability for gillnets to target haddock. The expectation in this measure is
that reducing the minimum size will allow gillnets to catch more haddock and haddock mortality
will increase as a result. The program is limited to a four month period when haddock are most
available. In addition, it is established as a pilot program and absent future Council action will
end after FY 2012, or earlier if the Regional Administrator determines it threatens mortality
objectives.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

532

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Biological Impacts of the Alternatives

Sink gillnets are also effective at targeting cod and pollock, and this measure may also affect
mortality of these two stocks. In the Gulf of Maine, both of these stocks are in rebuilding
programs. As can be seen in the cod selectivity curve (Figure 132), 6 inch gillnets will select
smaller cod than 6.5 inch gillnets, but the mode is still well above the minimum size. Very few
fish less than the minimum legal size are expected to be caught. The same is true for pollock,
where almost no sub-legal fish are expected to be retained in 6 inch gillnets.
While this program provides limited, controlled opportunities to target GOM haddock, it could
result in a change in mortality (relative to the No Action alternative where the program is not
implemented) in the following ways:
• The program might attract additional gillnet effort to the Gulf of Maine and if catch rates of
cod and pollock are similar to or higher than the catch rates with 6.5 inch mesh mortality
might increase.
• Even if additional effort is not attracted to the Gulf of Maine, if catch rates of cod and pollock
are higher than with 6.5 inch mesh mortality might increase. The opposite would occur if
catch rates are lower with 6 inch mesh: mortality on these stocks might decrease.
• The program might attract effort onto haddock and away from cod and pollock, reducing
effort and mortality on those stocks.
In an effort to examine these possible impacts, observed sink gillnet tows in the Gulf of Maine
were examined for the period 1996 through early 2008. Catches of cod, haddock, pollock, and
white hake were identified. The average weighted mesh size, number of nets, and average length
of nets were determined for each set. Sets were binned into seven categories of mesh size in half
inch increments from 5.25 inches to 8.25 inches and an eighth category that was all mesh larger
than 8.25 inches. For each species and for total catch, the pounds per foot of net was calculated as
a measure of CPUE. Analyses are reported here for the first quarter (January through March)
which is the primary period for this program (while April is included, rolling closures limit access
to the program in April). All weights, set lengths, and soak durations were transformed with a
natural logarithm with a small quantity added to observations of 0 in order to stabilize variance.
Because of limited observations, data for mesh groups 1 and 2 (less than 5.75 inches) nor was
data for statistical areas 464, 465, and 512. The data set analyzed included 428 observed tows
where haddock was caught. The data for all years and areas was pooled.
Figure 133 shows box plots of catch per set and catch per foot of net for haddock, cod, and
pollock, binned by mesh category. While the data are highly variable there is a suggestion that
haddock catch per set and catch rates increase with smaller mesh sizes. This pattern is not as
pronounced for cod. The pollock charts are difficult to interpret because the large number of tows
with no pollock drives the plots.
Based on these charts, an analysis of variance using mesh group as the factor was performed for
catch per set and catch per foot of net for haddock and cod. Again, since the program is designed
to target haddock, only sets catching haddock were examined. Mesh group was determined to be
significant for haddock catch per set and haddock catch rates and cod catch rates but explained
little of the variation in these values with r2 of less than 10 percent in all cases (see Table 183).
Mesh group was not a significant factor for determining cod catch per set.
Pairwise comparisons were made for the ANOVA results that indicated mesh group was
significant. For haddock catch and catch rates, mesh category 3 was significantly different than
mesh categories 4, 5, 6, and 8 (α=0.05). For cod catch rates, only mesh category 8 was
significantly different than mesh category 3 and 5. Based on these results, the observed data does
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

533

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Biological Impacts of the Alternatives

not support the conclusion that this program will significantly increase catch rates or catch per set
of cod. There is no evidence that cod catch rates with six inch mesh will be higher than catch
rates with 6.5 inch mesh. This makes it less likely that this program will increase cod mortality as
a result of increases in catch rates. While the analysis is not as detailed for pollock, there is little
evidence in Figure 132 that pollock catches or catch rates are very sensitive to the small change in
mesh size being considered.
The program also reduces the number of nets that can be fished by day gillnet vessels by 40
percent: from 50 nets to 30 nets. It is not clear how many vessels fish the maximum number of
nets allowed – the data used here is based on individual sets and does not include the total nets
being fished at any one time. Assuming no increase in the number of days fished, if vessels are
fishing the maximum number of nets catch rates of cod and pollock would have to increase by
more than 40 percent to result in an increase in mortality from day gillnet vessels participating in
the program. The same is not true for trip gillnet vessels since the proposal does not limit the
number of nets that can be fished by these vessels.
In summary, this pilot program will likely increase fishing mortality on GOM haddock as it will
allow sink gillnets to catch more haddock. It may result in a slight change in the size of cod and
pollock caught by gillnets but most of the catch will still be larger than the minimum size. This
measure is not expected to increase mortality of cod and pollock since the number of nets that can
be fished is reduced and vessels are required to use Category A DAS for this program. It should
also be noted that whether this program will result in exceeding mortality targets depends on the
effort control measures and AMs that are adopted for the fishery as a whole. For example, one
effort control option is estimated to reduce pollock mortality more than necessary, creating an
additional buffer that reduces the possibility this measure will affect pollock rebuilding. One AM
under consideration would impose a hard TAC overlay that would prevent catches from
exceeding ACLs. In addition, if most gillnet vessels join sectors that have catches controlled by
hard TACs then it is even less likely this program will exceed mortality targets.
Impacts on Other Species
Since this proposed option does not increase the amount of fishing effort that can be used by
gillnet vessels, it is not expected to increase catches of skates, monkfish, or spiny dogfish when
compared to the No Action alternative. While it may be that the smaller mesh net retains more or
less of these species, there is no experimental data to support either conclusion.

Table 183 – ANOVA results for observed gillnet sets catching haddock
Dependent Variable
N
Multiple R
Squared Multiple R
P value

LOG_HAD

428
0.317
0.100
0.000

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

LOG_CPU_HAD
428
0.301
0.091
0.000

534

LOG_COD

428
0.145
0.021
0.110

LOG_CPU_COD
428
0.202
0.041
0.003

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Biological Impacts of the Alternatives
Figure 132 - Gillnet selection curves for cod, pollock, and haddock (from Marciano et al. 2005). Note
different scales. In all graphs, curve to the far right is 6.5 inch (current minimum mesh size).and each
curve to the left of that is ½ inch smaller

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

535

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Biological Impacts of the Alternatives

Figure 133 – Catch per set and catch per foot of net for haddock, cod, and pollock on observed gillnet
sets catching haddock in the Gulf of Maine, CY 1996 – 2008.
8

-1
-2

LOG_CPU_HAD

LOG_HAD

6
5
4
3
2

-3
-4
-5
-6
-7

-8

-9

MESH_GROUP

LOG_COD

-10

-20

-5

-10

-15

MESH_GROUP

LOG_CPU_COD

-10

-20

MESH_GROUP

LOG_COD

LOG_CPU_COD

MESH_GROUP

-5

-10

-15

MESH_GROUP

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

MESH_GROUP

536

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Biological Impacts of the Alternatives

7.2.1.3.1.5

Haddock Minimum Size

The Proposed Action (Option 2) proposes to reduce the minimum size for retention of haddock to
18 inches (45.7 cm.) total length. This measure would apply to both GOM and GB haddock.
Adopting this measure would reduce regulatory discards of sub-legal haddock if minimum mesh
regulations remain the same.
Reduction of the haddock minimum size to 18 inches is not likely to impact fishing mortality
because there would be no concurrent change to the gear selectivity in the fishery. If fishing
behavior changes substantially, there could be some selectivity changes and a slight change in
fishing mortality. The large 2003 year class of haddock still represents a substantial portion of
the fishery, a portion of which is still less than 19 inches. Reducing the minimum size for
haddock from 19 to 18 inches will convert some of the discarded catch into landings, while
having no negative impact on the sustainability or size structure of the rebuild GB stock or nearly
rebuilt GOM stock. Figure 134 below provides data on haddock size from the spring 2008 trawl
survey conducted by the Northeast Fisheries Science Center. The three vertical bars represent 17,
18 and 19 inches, the X axis is centimeters, and the Y axis is numbers of fish.
One option in this action proposes to reduce the minimum mesh size required in codends under
certain circumstances, in which case if the minimum size is not reduced then regulatory discards
will increase. The proposed minimum size is larger than the median length at maturity for both
GOM and GB haddock. Changing the selectivity of the fishery, which may result as a result of
this measure, may affect status determination criteria in the future. Such changes will be
identified when the haddock stocks are assessed.
This measure is not expected to affect non-groundfish species.
Figure 134 - Haddock Length Frequency Distribution from the Spring 2008 NEFSC Trawl Survey

Spring 2008

3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
10

7.2.1.3.2 Recreational Fishery Management Measures
None of the recreational measures being considered are expected to affect monkfish, skates, or
spiny dogfish catches by recreational fishermen. While some of these species are caught by

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

537

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Biological Impacts of the Alternatives

recreational fishermen (most notably spiny dogfish) the proposed measures are not expected to
substantially change fishing effort and lead to changes in catches of these species.

7.2.1.3.2.1

Provisions for Landing Fillets

The Proposed Action (Option 2) is similar to Option 1 in that it allows landings fillets with the
skin off, but differs in that small amounts of skin must remain on the fillet in order to facilitate
identification of the species and the fillets must be from fish that met the minimum size
restrictions. The requirement that there be small amounts of skin on the fillet should reduce
concerns that a species is landed during a seasonal closure (currently only an issue for GOM cod).

7.2.1.3.2.2

Removal of the Limit on Hooks

The Proposed Action (Option 2) removes the regulation that limits recreational groundfish fishing
to two hooks per line. The impacts of this measure are uncertain because recreational data are not
collected in a way that allows determining the catch per angler per hook per day. Presumably
anglers will only increase the number of hooks used per line if they perceive a benefit, either in
catching more groundfish or in increasing the probability if catching groundfish. Either
perception would seem likely to increase the mortality of the targeted species. If bag limits and
minimum size restrictions remain in place then discards may increase even if landed catch does
not. What is unclear is whether removing this restriction will result in a change in fishing
practices or anglers will continue to use two hooks per line.

7.2.1.3.2.3

Measures to Reduce Mortality

A number of options are being considered to control fishing mortality for recreational vessels.
The need to reduce mortality, and the targeted reduction, is dependent on choices that are made
for the commercial and recreational allocation of groundfish stocks. Under certain allocation
decisions there is no need to target a reduction, while under others there is a need. The options
discussed below assume that the allocation decision results in a needed reduction in recreational
mortality.
Analyzing the impacts of the proposed measures is uncertain. None of the measures being
considered stops the catching of fish – they only control retention. The impacts are this sensitive
to assumptions on compliance and discard mortality. There is evidence in the MRFSS/MRIP data
that compliance is not 100 percent, and some studies have indicated discard mortality for jigged
cod to be as high as 50 percent (Farrington et al 1998), but there are no discard mortality studies
specific to the GOM cod recreational fishery.
Table 184 – Needed recreational mortality reductions under two allocation options

Stock

Overall
Needed

Allocation Years

Reduction
GOM cod
GOM haddock

1996-2006
Rec.

-40%

.-25%

Increase

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

538

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Biological Impacts of the Alternatives

Option 3 (the Proposed Action) extends the prohibition on landing cod into April, increasing the
closed season to November 1 through April 15. The impacts are not sensitive to assumptions on
discard mortality. Table 185 shows the impacts if landing of cod is prohibited for the entire
month of April - data limitations prevent calculating the impacts for a partial month. Impacts
clearly differ between components – this measure achieves a larger reduction on the private boat
fleet.
Table 185 – GOM cod recreational Option 3 biological impacts
Discard Mortality
Private Boat Party/Charter
Total
0
-44.1%
-28.7%
-39.9%
0.1
-44.1%
-28.7%
-39.9%
0.2
-44.1%
-28.7%
-39.9%
0.3
-44.1%
-28.7%
-39.9%
0.4
-44.1%
-28.7%
-39.9%
0.5
-44.1%
-28.7%
-39.9%

The Proposed Action - Option 5 - for GOM haddock is No Action. The sort term biological
impacts would be similar to the impacts of the current fishery with respect to the level of fishing
exploitation. The recreational fishery as well as the commercial fishery would be contributing to
fishing mortality levels that are incompatible with those required to rebuild stocks in the required
rebuilding period. This action also adopts a reduction in the minimum size for GOM haddock.
While this may result in an increase in haddock catches by this fishery, it is difficult to determine
the amount because of limited data on the frequency of catches of fish at this size.
The estimated changes in mortality for GOM haddock are calculated without respect to the
management measures for GOM cod. As there is evidence that cod and haddock are caught on the
same trips, the seasonal closure for GOM cod may also reduce haddock catches, while other
changes in cod measures may encourage targeting of haddock. These possible interactions are not
reflected in the impacts described above.

7.2.1.3.3 Atlantic Halibut Minimum Size
The Proposed Action (Option 2) proposes to increase the minimum size of Atlantic halibut to the
median length at maturity for female halibut in the Gulf of Maine as reported by Sigourney et al.
(2006). This change may reduce fishing mortality on Atlantic halibut by a small amount, and may
slightly increase the reproductive capability of this stock. At the current minimum size of 91 .r
cm./36 inches, over half of female halibut are not mature when they can be retained in the fishery.
Increasing the minimum size will provide female halibut about an additional year of growth and
reproduction before they can be retained. The impacts of this measure will depend on compliance
rates. GARM III noted that halibut are frequently landed below the current minimum size; an
increase will only have positive biological impacts if it increases the size of fish that are landed.
When compared to No Action, this measure should provide some additional protection for
Atlantic halibut but the differences are difficult to measure.

7.2.1.3.4 Prohibition on Retention of Atlantic Wolffish
The Proposed Action (Option 2) is designed to reduce fishing mortality for Atlantic wolffish.
Fishery removals of this stock are at low levels and is estimated to be less than 150 mt since
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

539

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Biological Impacts of the Alternatives

2002. While overfishing is not likely to be occurring the stock is probably overfished. Reducing
fishing mortality further should help the recovery of this stock.
Since wolffish are not specifically targeted in either the commercial or recreational fisheries and
catches are already at low levels, this measure is unlikely to change fishing behavior. Its
effectiveness relies on the hardiness of wolffish and their ability to survive when discarded
promptly. Grant et al. (2005) conducted experiments to determine the survivability of wolffish
caught in the yellowtail flounder trawl fishery on the Grand Banks. These experiments
demonstrated that wolffish returned to the sea within 1-2 hours had survival rates exceeding
ninety percent. When not returned for over two hours survival rates declined rapidly and almost
all wolffish died. These experiments were confined to trawl gear; survival rates with hook gear
are expected to be high as well. Survival rates with gillnet gear are uncertain. If wolffish get
tangled in sink gillnets, it may prove difficult to safely extract them from the nets and fishermen
may choose to kill the fish before removing them.
The measure considers requiring the return of wolffish year-round. Requiring return to the sea
year round would have the most impact on wolffish mortality but would result in the loss of a
major source of information on wolffish stock status.
The proposed effort control options will also result in an overall reduction in fishing mortality.
While not specifically designed to reduce mortality on wolffish they will likely reduce encounters
with this species and reduce mortality as a result.
This measure is not expected to affect catches of spiny dogfish, monkfish, or skates.

7.2.1.3.5 Implementation of Additional Sectors/Modifications to Existing
Sectors
Impacts on Groundfish Species
This action considers authorizing seventeen additional sectors and modifying the two existing
sectors. The biological impacts could be substantial, but the exact impacts hinge on the number of
vessels that choose to join sectors and the number that remain subject to the effort control system.
The number of vessels that will actually join sectors will not be known until after the amendment
is submitted by the Council and approved by NMFS, but there does appear to be widespread
interest in this option. In early 2008, the NMFS asked vessel owners to declare their interest in
sectors. Owners of nearly 650 permits expressed an interest in joining one of the nineteen sectors.
This is nearly half the existing limited access permits and is believed to represent a majority of
the permits that are currently landing regulated groundfish.
Fishing mortality for sector vessels will be controlled by quotas (ACE) issued to each sector. If a
large number of vessels join sectors, then a large part of the fishery will no longer be reliant on
most elements of the effort control system to control fishing mortality. In theory, this use of an
output control allows for a more precise control of fishing mortality and reduces the risk that
overfishing will occur. Specifying a quantity of fish that will limit the fishing activity of each
sector is viewed as a more definite control on mortality than attempting to design effort controls
to do the same. The effort control system used since 1994 has been criticized as failing to
adequately capture the behavioral responses of fishermen to regulatory changes because of the
complex nature of the fishery. An output control system reduces the need to anticipate these
changes and focuses on specifying the catch in the fishery. If adequate monitoring systems are in
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

540

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Biological Impacts of the Alternatives

place so that catch is reliably known then there is less likelihood that target catch levels will be
exceeded. In a review of input and output control systems, Morgan (1997) noted that effort
(input) control systems tend to slow increases in, but not limit, fishing mortality. He also
observed that frequent changes are necessary to adapt to increases in fishing efficiency – an
observation that appears to be supported by the history of the multispecies fishery and its
extensive list of adjustments. This is not to say that output control systems are without problems.
In the same paper, Morgan (1997) noted that the record is mixed on both setting TACs for these
systems at appropriate levels and at effectively constraining catch to the TACs.
The sectors that are proposed are a variant of a catch-share management system. While the
economic benefits of such systems have been demonstrated in the past, Costello et al. (2008)
recently evaluated the ability of these systems to improve sustainability. Their analyses focused
on Individual Transferable Quota (ITQ) systems, which have different characteristics than the
sector system adopted by Amendment 13. The primary difference is that in the multispecies
sectors each permit holder does not own a share of the quota, and neither does the sector itself.
The quota (ACE) is allocated to a sector on an annual basis based on the permits that have joined
the sector. Keeping this difference in mind, Costello et al. concluded that when compared to nonITQ systems the existence of an ITQ system did increase the likelihood that a fishery will be
sustainable.
The effectiveness of controlling fishing mortality using sectors depends on two key factors. The
first is that the TACs (ACE) for sectors are appropriately set. Not only does this mean that the
catch level is set consistent with scientific advice, but the scientific advice must also be accurate.
The record in the multispecies fishery in the recent past is that management measures (effort
controls) have kept the catches of most stocks at or below the TTACs based on scientific advice,
but those TTACs proved after the fact to be set higher than was warranted. This is not because the
TTACs were set inconsistent with the scientific advice; it is because the scientific advice was in
error or did not fully account for uncertainty. As a result, even though TTACs have not been
exceeded in 87 percent of the cases when set, overfishing continues to occur. Table 186 provides
an illustration of this problem. Note that in three of the four examples shown, the catch realized in
CY 2006 was expected to have a small probability of exceeding FMSY when the TTAC was set,
yet the realized mortality was much higher than FMSY . The GARM III assessment review panel
explicitly considered one source of error common in many assessments (referred to as a
“retrospective pattern” and devised approaches to adjust for that error. In addition, the ACL
process that will be adopted by this action proposes a more explicit consideration of both
scientific and management uncertainty. These two changes should improve the matching of
desired catch levels with realized fishing mortality rates.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

541

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Biological Impacts of the Alternatives
Table 186 – Examples of continued overfishing in spite of catch levels below TTAC
Stock
CY 2006 Catch
GARM III Ratio of F/FMSY
Projected probability that
as Percent of
CY 2006 Catch Exceeds
TTAC
FMSY
GOM Cod

82%

10%-25%

1.5

GB cod

60%

<1%

1.24

CC/GOM yellowtail
flounder
SNE/MA winter
flounder

95%

50%

3.75

82%

<1%

3.5

The second key factor is that catch must be accurately known. This action proposes extensive
modifications the reporting systems for sectors. The biological impacts of these requirements are
discussed in section 7.2.1.2.3.
An additional benefit of forming additional sectors is expected to be a reduction in regulatory
discards. Trip limits are one of the few effort control measures that can be tailored for a specific
stock or species. As a result, their use has increased from just one stock (GB haddock) in 1994 to
seven stocks in FY 2008 (GOM cod, GB cod, GB yellowtail flounder, SNE/MA yellowtail
flounder, CC/GOM yellowtail flounder, GB winter flounder, white hake). In almost all instances
the adoption of a trip limit, or the reduction of an existing trip limit, resulted in an increase in the
discard rate for a particular stock. Since sectors are not subject too the trip limits adopted for nonsector vessels, and are unlikely to choose to use trip limits to control catch, this source of discards
should be reduced. There is evidence that this may have occurred with the Fixed Gear Sector in
FY 2007, though that evidence is not conclusive (see section 6.2.4.2.2). While this source of
regulatory discards may be removed, it is possible that the requirement that sectors stop fishing
when an ACE is reached may create a different discard incentive. As an ACE is approached, there
could be an incentive for sector vessels to discard catch, particularly if monitoring is not
sufficient to detect or prevent this activity. Sector vessels will be prohibited from discarding
legal-sized regulated groundfish, but this prohibition could prove difficult to enforce.
As mentioned previously, vessels that participate in sectors will not be subject to many effort
control measures, such as DAS limits and trip limits. They can also request exemptions from
other measures, such as those GOM rolling closures that still apply to sectors. Sector proponents
expect that removing these restrictions will allow them to fish more efficiently, catching more
fish on a trip, discarding less, and saving operating costs. A question that bears on analyzing the
impacts of sectors is how efficient will the vessels be? How many DAS (or days absent) will be
necessary to harvest the sector TACs? The answers to these questions influence estimates of
sector operating and monitoring costs, as well as the likely impacts of sectors on effects on
essential fish habitat, discards, and other factors. Without knowing the precise membership of
sectors these questions are difficult to answer, but the following discussion provides rough
estimates.
The observer database was queried to determine the catches (kept or discarded) of cod, haddock,
witch flounder, winter flounder, and pollock by large mesh otter trawls for the calendar years
2004 through 2007. Only tows that caught (kept or discarded) one of these species were analyzed.
Tows were binned into a trip/area/annual quarter basis. Two types of targeting behavior were also
identified. Trips were coded to indicate whether the vessel operator identified specific round or
flatfish target species, and again whether the operator specifically identified cod as a target
species. A General Linear Model of these data showed that year, area, tow time, and targeting
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

542

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Biological Impacts of the Alternatives

behavior accounted for about 10 percent of the variability in catches. Rather than attempt an
analysis using all of these factors, the average catch per hour towed was calculated for year,
species, stock area, and targeting behavior. Since all catch (kept and discarded) will count against
the sector ACE all catch was included in these averages. The result provides a gross overview of
the average catch rates over time. The data was further examined to determine an average tow
length in the GOM (SA 511-515) or GB (SA 521, 522, 525, 526, 562, 562) areas and the average
number of tows per day absent. The TTACs for FY 2009 were divided by the catch rates and
average number of hours towed per day to determine an estimate of the number of DAS necessary
to harvest the available TTAC (TTAC less an allowance for Canadian and recreational catches,
catches by other gears, other ACL sub-components, etc.)) .
This result should be viewed as a broad indicator of necessary effort levels that might be needed
to harvest the TTAC if all vessels join sectors. These estimates may prove inaccurate for several
reasons. Vessels in sectors may operate very differently from the way they operated under the
effort control system. Trip length may change to reduce steaming time and operating costs. The
average number of tows per day may change under sectors, particularly for single-day trips that
will no longer be limited by DAS or trip limits. The use of overall average catch rates observed
under a restrictive management program likely discounts improvements in catch rates that sectors
may achieve and may over-estimate the number of DAS necessary. Vessel operators may change
when they fish, taking advantage of either high catch rates or high prices, and so the catch rates
observed in the past may not be consistent with future catch rates. It will be difficult to evaluate
these different effects until data is available from additional sectors.
The results are shown in Table 187 through Table 192. With the exception of GB haddock, all of
the TTACs could be harvested with under 8,000 DAS if the stock is targeted. The TTACs of GB
and GOM yellowtail and winter flounder, witch flounder, and pollock could be harvested with
less than 9,000 DAS even when these species are not specifically targeted. The biggest difference
in CPUE resulting from targeting behavior occurs with GOM cod, where the number of DAS to
harvest the TTAC when the stock is not targeted increases by a factor of eight over the number
needed to harvest the TAC when targeted.
Because multiple species are caught on any given trip, the DAS necessary to harvest the TAC for
each stock cannot be merely added together to get a total amount of days. One way to approach
the question of total days is to consider that the vessels target a high value species such as cod
and all other species are harvested at the rate when they are not targeted. In this case, in the GOM
about 5,785 DAS would be needed to harvest GOM cod. This is enough DAS to harvest witch
flounder, GOM winter flounder, pollock, and yellowtail flounder at the rate when roundfish is
targeted. Only the GOM haddock TTAC would not be caught. On GB, about 4,248 DAS would
be needed to harvest GB cod. Only the portion of witch flounder caught in the GB area would be
expected to be harvested, and GB haddock, yellowtail flounder, and winter flounder would need
additional DAS. GB haddock is unlikely to be harvested unless catch rates improve from those
observed in 2004-2007 (which is likely as the slow-growing 2003 year class increases in length).
This suggests that the portion of the catch for trawls could be caught with about 10,000 DAS if all
vessels joined sectors, with the exception of GB haddock. To put this in context, according to a
combined dealer/VTR database maintained by the NEFSC, in 2007 a total of 573 permits spent
17,431 days absent on trips that caught at least one of these five species from the GOM or GB
areas. Based on recent catch rates, trawl vessels could catch most of their share of the FY 2010
median catch levels while using 60 percent of the days absent that were used in the effort control
system in FY 2007. Additional positive biological impacts expected from this reduction in effort
include fewer interactions with other species and reduced discards.
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

543

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Biological Impacts of the Alternatives

A similar analysis was not performed for gillnet vessels. Gillnet fishermen may be able to alter
their daily catch rates by adjusting soak time, number of nets, and mesh size. It is not clear that
their catch rates are as dependent on time at-sea as is the case with trawl vessels. The experience
of the Fixed Gear Sector does indicate that the vessels in this sector increased their landings per
day absent once organized into sectors, and may have reduced discard rates as well (section
6.2.4.2.1). While a quantitative estimate is not provided here, it is reasonable to expect that the
formation of additional sectors using may reduce the days fished by gillnet vessels as well.
Impacts on Other Species
It is difficult to predict the impact of the formation of sectors on other species such as skates,
spiny dogfish, and monkfish. Sectors are expected to more efficiently harvest groundfish
resources, leading to fewer days fished. This would be expected to reduce all discards on
groundfish trips, including discards for the three species identified. Sector vessels may choose to
more actively participate in open-access fisheries once their groundfish ACE is harvested, leading
to increased catches of skates and/or spiny dogfish, but this opportunity will be limited. There is
some indication from the members of the GB Cod Hook Sector that effort shifts due occur when
vessels join sectors, but the evidence from the one full year of operation by the Fixed Gear Sector
does not support that conclusion.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

544

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Biological Impacts of the Alternatives

Table 187 – Estimated DAS to harvest FY 2009 cod TTAC for large mesh otter trawls based on observed catch rates CY 2004 – CY 2007
Stock Area
Target
Species
Flatfish
Roundfish
Tow
Length
Tows/Day

GB
2004

2005

2006

2007

2004

2005

2006

2007

104

111

3.7
4.5

4.401
2.678

4,153,240

7,569,996

28,245
5,903

17,505
5,354

15,177
7,230

8,977
4,248

19,465
7,215

23,866
11,369

14,435
6,152

44,250
5,785

Mean
catch/hour
Mean
catch/hour

Available TAC (pounds)
Days to TAC based on
Target
Flatfish
Roundfish

GOM

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

545

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Biological Impacts of the Alternatives

Table 188 – Estimated DAS to harvest FY 2009 haddock TTAC for large mesh otter trawls based on observed catch rates CY 2004 – CY 2007
Stock Area
Target
Species
Flatfish
Roundfish
Tow
Length
Tows/Day

GB
2004

2005

2006

2007

2004

2005

2006

2007

167

122

3.7
4.5

4.401
2.678

141,621,299

1,965,357

288,466
40,381

192,644
55,100

409,005
106,695

261,787
138,504

6,535
6,879

11,902
7,571

11,179
14,020

15,077
7,631

Mean
catch/hour
Mean
catch/hour

Available TAC (pounds)
Days to TAC based on
Target
Flatfish
Roundfish

GOM

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

546

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Biological Impacts of the Alternatives

Table 189 – Estimated DAS to harvest FY 2009 yellowtail flounder TTAC for large mesh otter trawls based on observed catch rates CY 2004 – CY 2007
Stock Area
Target
Species
Flatfish

GB
2004

2005

2006

2007

2004

2005

2006

2007

141

3.7
4.5
3,386,596

4.401
2.678
1,801,158

1,439
3,608

2,895
6,765

4,748
6,954

3,064
6,152

4,753
5,467

5,799
9,484

6,005
6,407

8,908
4,646

Mean
catch/hour
Mean
catch/hour

Roundfish
Tow
Length
Tows/Day
Available TAC (pounds)
Days to TAC based on
Target
Flatfish
Roundfish

GOM

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

547

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Biological Impacts of the Alternatives

Table 190 – Estimated DAS to harvest FY 2009 witch flounder TTAC for large mesh otter trawls based on observed catch rates CY 2004 – CY 2007.
While witch flounder is a single stock, it is caught on both GB and GOM so the TAC was divided between these two areas and the days necessary to
catch each portion are different.
Stock Area
Target
Species
Flatfish

GB
2004

2005

2006

2007

2004

2005

2006

2007

3.7
4.5
971,788

4.401
2.678
971,788

1,743
1,929

2,094
2,078

2,042
3,374

2,315
2,327

4,756
1,988

3,494
5,240

5,517
4,531

3,355
3,953

Mean
catch/hour
Mean
catch/hour

Roundfish
Tow
Length
Tows/Day
Available TAC (pounds)
Days to TAC based on
Target
Flatfish
Roundfish

GOM

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

548

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Biological Impacts of the Alternatives

Table 191 – Estimated DAS to harvest FY 2009 pollock TTAC for large mesh otter trawls based on observed catch rates CY 2004 – CY 2007
Stock Area
Target
Species
Flatfish
Roundfish
Tow
Length
Tows/Day

GB
2004

2005

GOM
2006

2007

Mean
catch/hour
Mean
catch/hour

N/A

Available TAC (pounds)
Days to TAC based on
Target
Flatfish
Roundfish

2004

2005

2006

2007

106

765

104

380

4.401
2.678

13,584,084

10,076
11,158

17,251
903

10,844
6,637

6,532
1,821

Table 192 – Estimated DAS to harvest FY 2009 winter flounder TTAC for large mesh otter trawls based on observed catch rates CY 2004 – CY 2007
Stock Area
Target
Species
Flatfish
Roundfish
Tow
Length
Tows/Day

GB
2004

2005

2006

2007

2004

2005

2006

2007

3.7
4.5

4.401
2.678

4,197,117

714,390

7,528
8,333

9,043
8,975

8,821
14,573

9,998
10,050

4,794
2,696

4,030
7,699

8,896
9,149

3,849
4,294

Mean
catch/hour
Mean
catch/hour

Available TAC (pounds)
Days to TAC based on
Target
Flatfish
Roundfish

GOM

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

549

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Biological Impacts of the Alternatives

7.2.1.3.6 Accountability Measures
Accountability measures (AMs) are supposed to work in concert with the adoption of ACLs to
end overfishing if it occurs. In general, if ACLs are correctly set and effective AMs are designed
and implemented, the risk of overfishing should be reduced, fishing mortality should be
controlled, and groundfish stocks should recover and be maintained at sustainable levels. These
two measures do not work in isolation, however, and interact with other elements of the
management plan. Indeed, if effective effort controls are adopted or sectors successfully control
their catch the AMs may never be implemented. These theoretical benefits of AMs will be
explored in more detail for the specific options under consideration. This section focuses on the
impacts of AMs on groundfish stocks; impacts on other species and fisheries are described in
section 7.7.

7.2.1.3.6.1 Commercial Groundfish Common Pool Accountability
Measures
Two AMs are proposed for non-sector vessels. Differential DAS would be used as an AM for FY
2010 and FY2011, with a hard TAC AM applying to non-sector vessels for FY 2012 and beyond.
For FY 2010 and FY 2011, the Proposed Action adopts Option 2 - a differential DAS adjustment
in a following year if there is an overage of an ACL. This is a reactive, post-season AM. Action is
taken for the following year when it is projected that an AM has been exceeded, or is likely to be
exceeded before the end of the current fishing year. The adjustment to DAS counting is designed
to prevent overfishing and is not designed specifically to correct conditions that may have
resulted from exceeding the ACL in the previous year. The amount of the DAS adjustment is
simply based on the ratio of the catch to the ACL. The basis underlying this approach is that the
difference between the catch and the ACL represent the difference between desired and realized
exploitation.
Exploitation (as opposed to fishing mortality) is simply the catch divided by the stock size. For a
given stock size, a chance in catch of a given percent results in the same percentage change in
exploitation. If stock size is correctly predicted, exceeding a targeted catch level by X percent
means that the exploitation targeted by that catch is exceeded by the same percent. The
relationship between exploitation and fishing mortality is not linear, though it is nearly so at
desired fishing mortality rates. A percent change in exploitation results in a slightly larger percent
change in fishing mortality. As an example, this means that a 20 percent overage in exploitation
translates into a 21 percent change in mortality (at low fishing mortalities – the exact amount
increases as exploitation/mortality increases). Figure 135 illustrates this relationship for three
percentage changes in exploitation. What this means for AMs is that if stock size is correctly
estimated, exceeding the ACL by a specific percentage means that the fishing mortality
associated with that ACL will be exceeded by a larger percentage. Similarly, a DAS adjustment
designed to reduce exploitation by a certain percentage will result in a slightly larger percentage
reduction in fishing mortality.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

550

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Biological Impacts of the Alternatives
Figure 135 – Percent changes in fishing mortality resulting from a fixed change in exploitation.

There are three critical assumptions in this approach. First, arguing that a percentage overage of
the ACL results in the same percentage overage in exploitation is valid only as long as stock size
is correctly estimated. If stock size is over-estimated, then an ACL overage of a given percentage
will result in a larger percentage change in exploitation. Uncertainty over this assumption can be
built into the setting of the ABC and/or ACL. Second, this approach assumes changes in DAS
result in corresponding changes in exploitation. The validity of this second assumption is more
difficult to evaluate. While the Closed Area Model results suggest that changes in DAS result in
similar changes in exploitation for many stocks (particularly the target stocks of cod, haddock,
and yellowtail flounder), the management system has never actually tried to control mortality in
this manner without modifying other measures at the same time. As a result, there is no empirical
evidence that a percentage change in DAS gives the same percentage change in exploitation. In
addition, shifts in effort from one area to another may result from changes in DAS counting
implemented through AMs. This cannot be explicitly accounted for with an automatic adjustment
to the DAS system. It would require a complete redesign of the effort control system which does
not seem possible given the desire to have AMs implemented with minimal analyses and absent a
Council action. Once again, these uncertainties could be elements of management uncertainty
when setting ACLs. Third, the approach implicitly assumes that absent other management
changes fishing activity is similar from year to year. While the validity of these assumptions is
uncertain, the management program does provide a mechanism to react should they prove in
error. The periodic adjustment process provides for a review every two years and more frequent
action can be taken if necessary.
How would this measure have performed if adopted by Amendment 13 in FY 2004? The
overages of CC/GOM yellowtail flounder and GB cod in 2004 would have adjusted DAS
counting in the GOM to 1.4:1 and on GB to 1.2: in 2005. There would have not been any change
in these areas in 2006 as a result of 2005 catches, but DAS counting in the SNE areas would have
been revised to 0.7:1 because of the underage of stocks in those areas. Differential counting
would have remained at 1.4:1 in the GOM in 2007, declined to 1.2:1 on GB, and increased to
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

551

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Biological Impacts of the Alternatives

3.6:1 in SNE in 2007 as a result of 2006 catches. Overall, this option would probably have
reduced fishing mortality on GOM and GB stocks during this period but would have initially
increased mortality on SNE/MA yellowtail and SNE/MA winter flounder from 2005 to 2006
before drastically reducing mortality for these stocks in 2007.
The differential DAS areas in the Proposed Action were modified to be similar to the reporting
areas adopted in this action. The revised areas more closely match stock areas, and implementing
differential DAS changes in these areas will apply the changes to most of the catch of these
stocks. The proportion of the kept catch that came from the areas during the period CY 2006
through 2008 is shown in Table 193. Several comparisons are made to the landings that came
from the areas proposed in draft Amendment 16, showing that the proposed areas will provide a
more effective AM by applying any changes to more of the harvest.
Table 193 – Landings (2006-2008) from proposed areas used for differential DAS AM.
Landings From
Draft A16 Area
Stock
Revised Area
Landings
Witch Flounder
82%
36.50%
Plaice
92%
50%
White Hake
86%
69%
Halibut
81%
Redfish
73%
Pout
96%
Pollock
90%
28%
Atlantic wolffish
86%
NA
GOM Cod
92%
91%
GOM Haddock
91%
GOM WFL
95%
CC/GOM Yellowtail Flounder
95%
78%
GOM/GB Windowpane
87%
3%
GB Cod
GB Haddock
GB Yellowtail Flounder
GB Winter Flounder

92%
91%
100%
100%

SNE/MA Winter Flounder
SNE/MA Yellowtail Flounder
SNE Windowpane

98%
100%
100%

28%

For FY 2012 and beyond, the Proposed Action adopts Option 1, which overlays a hard TAC AM
system over the effort control measures adopted for non-sector vessels (common pool vessels).
The ACL, or quota, for each stock is subdivided between three periods in each fishing year.
Catches (both landings and discards) are monitored and when it is projected that ninety percent of
a quota is caught an area is closed to groundfish fishing. This area is designed to be the area that
contributed ninety percent of the landings in recent years. Any overages in a trimester period are

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

552

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Biological Impacts of the Alternatives

deducted from the following period, and any overage for the year is deducted from the
ACL/quota for the following year.
This system provides a proactive, in-season AM. Action is taken to control catches prior to an
overage. These actions include trip limits that are adjusted for some stocks, which should slow
catch rates and reduce the likelihood that trimester TACs are reached. Assuming efficient catch
monitoring and setting of trimester ACLs/quotas the use of a fishery closure allows for a prompt
response to excessive harvesting rates. While the closures do not end all fishing on the stock, they
are large enough and complete enough that if implemented in a timely fashion the ACL/quota is
not likely to be exceeded and overfishing is not likely to occur. The payback provisions- both
between quarters and between years – mean that there is an automatic adjustment should catches
be too high in any given period. Some stocks are not subject to a closure, which means that the
AM would be less effective for these stocks. In particular, halibut and windowpane flounder are
not covered by either a closure or a trip limit so there is effectively no AM for those stocks.
One concern with this approach is that the threat of an in-season closure may encourage derby
fishing behavior. While this is primarily an adverse economic impact it may have biological
impacts as well. Knowledge of a possible closure may encourage discarding and/or misreporting
of catch. Assessments of stocks will degrade absent adequate catch information. These types of
behaviors would increase the management uncertainty and would trigger a need for more cautious
setting of ACLs.
If this AM would have been adopted in Amendment 13, how would it have performed for FY
2004 through FY 2008? Some idea of the biological impacts can be estimated by considering the
information in Table 51 assuming that the ACL would have been set at the TTAC used for those
years. The information is not sufficient to identify whether trimester adjustments would have
been triggered. Based on annual catch, the AM would have been triggered for GOM cod, GB cod,
GB yellowtail flounder, and CC/GOM yellowtail flounder as a result of calendar year catches in
2005. Overages would have been deducted for the following year and may have been large
enough that the AM would have been triggered in 2005 for GOM cod and CC/GOM yellowtail
flounder reducing catches for those stocks in 2005. In 2006 the catch of SNE/MA yellowtail
flounder would likely have triggered the AM, reducing catches of this stock and SNE/MA winter
flounder. In 2007 this would likely have occurred again, and also would have occurred for GB
yellowtail flounder. Triggering the AM for GB yellowtail flounder would probably reduce
catches of other GB stocks such as GB cod and GB winter flounder but might shift effort into the
GOM, increasing mortality on those stocks. Overall, the AM system would probably have
reduced mortality on SNE/MA yellowtail flounder and SNE/MA winter flounder, and may have
reduced mortality on GB cod, yellowtail flounder, and winter flounder. This may have shifted
effort into the GOM and increased mortality on those stocks.
Compared to No Action, either one of these options should improve the ability of the
management plan to remain within fishing mortality targets. Under No Action, no AMs are in
place and any adjustments to the management system require a specific Council action. Because
of administrative delays there is considerable lag between evidence of overfishing and the
implementation of corrective measures. The No Action alternative also does not comply with
current legal requirements.
Compared to the No Action alternative, either option would result in more timely adjustments to
the management plan that the planned biennial adjustment process. The success in ending
overfishing will depend in large measure on the accuracy of the ACLs rather than the choice of a
specific AM.
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

553

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Biological Impacts of the Alternatives

7.2.1.3.6.2

Recreational Groundfish Fishing Accountability Measures

The Proposed Action (Option 3) establishes an AM for the recreational fishery. The recreational
harvest in fishing year 1 will be evaluated early in fishing year 2. NMFS determines the AM after
consultation with the Council. These AMs will be either changes in season, bag limits, or
minimum sizes. The AMs will be implemented by NMFS as soon as possible; this makes it likely
that the AM will begin to address the catch overage in the year immediately following the
overage As a result of this AM it is more likely that recreational harvest will be kept at or below
the ACL, reducing the risk of overfishing. An issue that may make the AM less effective is that if
bag limits and minimum size regulations are used to reduce the kept portion of catch, they do not
have as large an impact on total removals. These factors will have to be considered when
choosing the AM.

7.2.2 Biological Impacts of Alternatives to the Proposed Action
This section identifies the biological impacts of the alternatives that were not selected, including
the No Action alternatives where appropriate.

7.2.2.1 Updates to Status Determination Criteria and Formal Rebuilding
Programs

7.2.2.1.1 Revised Status Determination Criteria
Under the No Action alternative, the SDC adopted by Amendment 13 would continue to guide
management actions. The impacts of this choice vary among stocks. For some stocks, the biomass
SDC (or target biomass) is higher than the value in the Proposed Action. In these cases, the stock
would be ultimately rebuilt to a larger stock size. For other stocks, the Amendment 13 value is
lower and if this option is selected the stock’s rebuilding potential might not be realized. These
differences are highlighted in Table 174. There are also differences in fishing mortality thresholds
– for some stocks, the Amendment 13 values are higher, and for others they are lower. Keeping a
lower value might be viewed as a biological benefit to the stock as it would result in lower
catches from the fishery.
In addition to differences in values, in some instances the No Action/Amendment 13 SDCs are a
different parameter than what is proposed. Selecting the No Action alternative is also not
consistent with using the best available science for management actions.

7.2.2.1.2 ABC Control Rules
Under the No Action alternative, the MSY control rules adopted by Amendment 9 and modified
in Amendment 13 would be used to guide the setting of ABCs. These control rules call for fishing
mortality to be reduced as stock size declines below SSBMSY, and the target fishing mortality rate
is set at 75 percent of the MSY control rule. While the target fishing mortality rate would be
lower than the mortality rates resulting from the proposed ABC control rule, the mortality
resulting from the MSY control rule would be higher. Long-term, the effect on stock size of this
alternative would be similar to the Proposed Action if target fishing mortality rates were
maintained.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

554

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Biological Impacts of the Alternatives

7.2.2.1.3 Revised Mortality Targets for Formal Rebuilding Programs
7.2.2.1.3.1

Option 1 – No Action

This option would use the fishing mortality targets calculated for Amendment 13 to rebuild the
stocks. In addition, it would retain the biomass targets adopted in Amendment 13. Projections
were used to predict estimates of future stock size. The following figures illustrate predicted stock
growth given the fishing mortality rates are achieved for all stocks with reliable projections. The
charts include recent stock size for comparison to future predictions, as well as the Amendment
13 SSBMSY level. In each chart the solid SSB line reflects the rebuilding strategy.
There are some technical concerns with the charts shown here. The GARM III assessments
updated selectivity in the fishery, growth rates, and recruitment estimates for many stocks to
values that are different than those used for Amendment 13 calculations. Using those values with
the Amendment 13 biomass and mortality targets is not consistent. The old values were not used
because while the Council could choose to use the Amendment 13 mortality targets, the basis for
the new recruitment, selectivity, growth, and other factors used in the projections is technical and
is not subject to a Council choice.
Charts are not shown for GOM winter flounder, GOM haddock, Northern and Southern
windowpane flounder, pollock, white hake, Atlantic halibut, or ocean pout. The GARM III
review panel advised against using the assessment results to calculate projections for the
windowpane flounders, GOM winter flounder, and ocean pout. It would not be consistent with
the best scientific information available to present those projection results. Projections are not
shown for white hake, GOM haddock, and Atlantic halibut because those stocks were assessed
with an index-based assessment in the past but use and age-based assessment now. There isn’t a
reliable way to use the index-based values ion the current projection model.
The projections indicate that the No Action alternative will not achieve rebuilding targets for GB
cod, GOM cod. GB yellowtail flounder, SNE/MA yellowtail flounder, CC/GOM yellowtail
flounder, plaice, witch flounder, and SNE/MA winter flounder. It will achieve the Amendment 13
targets for GB haddock and redfish. For the stocks that would not achieve the targets, the reason
is a combination of higher biomass targets adopted by Amendment and/or higher fishing
mortality rates than are needed for rebuilding. The stock sizes achieved under the No Action
option for GB cod, SNE/MA yellowtail flounder, CC/GOM yellowtail flounder, and plaice are
similar to those achieved under Option 2, and the failure of the No Action option is due to higher
biomass targets.
Selecting this option will not have direct impacts on non-groundfish stocks.
A No Action projection is not provided for white hake, GB winter flounder, and GOM haddock.
The projection model for these stocks changed since GARM II.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

555

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Biological Impacts of the Alternatives
Figure 136 – GB cod predicted SSB, No Action
GB Cod SSB
Option 1 - No Action
250

200

SSB (K mt)

150

100

Upper Quartile
Median
Lower Quartile
A13 SSBMSY
Estimated SSB

20
28

20
27

20
26

20
25

20
24

20
23

20
21
20
22

20
20

20
19

20
18

20
17

20
16

20
15

20
14

20
13

20
12

20
11

20
10

20
09

20
08

20
07

20
06

20
05

20
04

20
03

Year

Figure 137 - GOM cod predicted SSB, No Action
GOM Cod SSB
Option 1 - No Action
90

SSB (K mt)

Upper Quartile
Median
Lower Quartile
A13 SSBMSY
Estimated SSB

Year

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

556

20
28

20
27

20
26

20
25

20
24

20
23

20
22

20
21

20
20

20
19

20
18

20
17

20
16

20
15

20
14

20
13

20
12

20
11

20
10

20
09

20
08

20
07

20
06

20
04
20
05

20
03

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Biological Impacts of the Alternatives

Figure 138 - GB haddock predicted SSB, No Action
GB Haddock SSB
Option 1 - No Action
450

400

350

SSB (K mt)

300

250

200

150

Lower Quartile
Median
Upper Quartile
A13 SSBMSY
FW 42 Median

100

20
28

20
27

20
26

20
25

20
24

20
23

20
22

20
21

20
20

20
19

20
18

20
17

20
16

20
15

20
14

20
13

20
12

20
11

20
10

20
09

20
08

20
07

20
06

20
05

20
04

20
03

Year

Figure 139 - GB yellowtail flounder predicted SSB, No Action
GB Yellowtail Flounder SSB
Option 1- No Action
70

SSB (K mt)

20
Upper Quartile
Median
Lower Quartile
A13 SSBMSY
Estimated SSB

Year

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

557

20
28

20
27

20
26

20
25

20
24

20
23

20
22

20
21

20
20

20
19

20
18

20
17

20
16

20
15

20
14

20
13

20
12

20
11

20
10

20
09

20
08

20
07

20
06

20
04
20
05

20
03

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Biological Impacts of the Alternatives

Figure 140 – SNE/MA yellowtail flounder predicted SSB, No Action
SNE/MA Yellowtail Flounder SSB
Option 1 - No Action
80

SSB (K mt)

Upper Quartile
Median
Lower Quartile
A13 SSBMSY
Estimated SSB

20
28

20
26
20
27

20
25

20
24

20
23

20
22

20
20
20
21

20
18
20
19

20
17

20
16

20
15

20
14

20
13

20
12

20
11

20
10

20
09

20
08

20
07

20
06

20
05

20
04

20
03

Year

Figure 141 – CC/GOM yellowtail flounder predicted SSB, No Action
CC/GOM Yellowtail Flounder SSB
Option 1 - No Action
16

SSB (K mt)

Upper Quartile
Median
Lower Quartile
A13 SSBMSY
Estimated SSB

20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
11
20
12
20
13
20
14
20
15
20
16
20
17
20
18
20
19
20
20
20
21
20
22
20
23
20
24
20
25
20
26
20
27
20
28

20
04

20
03

Year

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

558

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Biological Impacts of the Alternatives

Figure 142 – American plaice predicted SSB, No Action
American Plaice SSB
Option 1 - No Action
35

SSB (K mt)

Upper Quartile
Median
Lower Quartile
A13 SSBMSY
Estimated SSB

20
27
20
28

20
26

20
24
20
25

20
23

20
22

20
21

20
20

20
19

20
18

20
17

20
16

20
15

20
14

20
13

20
12

20
11

20
10

20
09

20
08

20
07

20
06

20
04
20
05

20
03

Year

Figure 143 – Witch flounder predicted SSB, No Action
Witch Flounder SSB
Option 1 - No Action
30

SSB (K mt)

Upper Quartile
Median
Lower Quartile
A13 SSBMSY
Estimated SSB

Year

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

559

20
28

20
27

20
26

20
25

20
24

20
23

20
22

20
21

20
20

20
19

20
18

20
17

20
16

20
15

20
14

20
13

20
12

20
11

20
10

20
09

20
08

20
07

20
06

20
05

20
04

20
03

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Biological Impacts of the Alternatives

Figure 144 – SNE/MA winter flounder predicted SSB, No Action
SNE/MA Winter Flounder SSB
Option 1 - No Action
40

SSB (K mt)

Upper Quartile
Median
Lower Quartile
A13 SSBMSY
Estimated SSB

20
28

20
27

20
26

20
25

20
24

20
23

20
22

20
21

20
20

20
19

20
18

20
17

20
16

20
15

20
14

20
13

20
12

20
11

20
10

20
09

20
08

20
07

20
06

20
05

20
04

20
03

Year

Figure 145 - Redfish predicted SSB, No Action
Redfish SSB
Option 1 - No Action
600

500

SSB (k mt)

400

300

200
Upper Quartile
Median
Lower Quartile
A13 SSBMSY
Estimated SSB

100

0
03 004 005 006 007 008 009 010 011 012 013 014 015 016 017 018 019 020 021 022 023 024 025 026 027 028
2
2
2
2
20
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Year

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

560

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Biological Impacts of the Alternatives

7.2.2.2

Fishery Program Administration

7.2.2.2.1 Annual Catch Limits
The No Action alternative would not define ACLs. Choosing this alternative would not comply
with current legal requirements. It is not clear what the biological impact s of selecting this
alternative would be. As noted in the AE (section 6.1.8), the current management program has
struggled to meet mortality objectives even though since 2004 it has held catches below TTACs
for most stocks (section 6.2.2). While admittedly TTACs provided by the NEFSC for 2004 and
2005 used assumptions for recruitment and growth that did not take into account recent trends but
were based on long-term expectations, the same did not occur for the TTACs set for 2006 and
2007. These were calculated using assumptions that were approved by the GARM II review panel
and were believed to be more realistic, yet many mortality targets were exceeded even though
TTACs were not. As a result it is not immediately obvious that establishing a system of ACLs
and AMs will increase the probability of achieving mortality targets or that choosing the No
Action alternative increases the risk of exceeding targets and will result in excessive fishing
mortality. Choosing this alternative, however, will not improve the assessment of uncertainty in
setting TTACs or TACs and achieving mortality targets. At present there is little formal structure
to the TTAC setting approach and there has not been effective SSC review of the TTACs/TACs.
This is likely to continue if No Action is selected.

7.2.2.2.2 Addition of Atlantic Wolffish to the Management Unit
As a result of the No Action alternative, Atlantic wolffish would not be added to the management
unit and measures that are specifically designed to rebuild this species could be adopted under the
M-S Act. A formal rebuilding plan would not be adopted and EFH would not be specified.

7.2.2.2.3 Sector Administration Provisions
This action proposes numerous changes to the administration of voluntary, self-selecting sectors.
All of these changes are designed to improve the effectiveness of sectors as a management option.
Some of the proposed changes are primarily administrative in nature. Under the No Action
alternative, these revised administrative measures would not be adopted. Many of these
administrative measures provide more detail on the information sector organizers should submit
when applying for a sector or in annual reports. These are unlikely to have any direct biological
impacts, and the No Action alternative would not be expected to have any biological impacts,
either.. The proposed measures that fall into this category are:
•
•

Sector formation proposal and operations plan revisions
Sector annual reports

In addition to the proposed PSC alternatives, this action considered a No Action and three other
alternatives for allocating the resource to sectors. None of these allocation options were expected
to have direct biological impacts as they were merely different ways of allocating the same
amount of fish. They could have different indirect biological impacts if the allocation methods
distribute the resource differently, such as to a gear that has a higher bycatch. These impacts are
impossible to predict without knowing sector membership and fishing practices under sectors.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

561

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Biological Impacts of the Alternatives

7.2.2.2.3.1

Allocation of Resources

This action changes how resources are allocated to sectors. Under the No Action alternative,
sectors are allowed to choose which stocks will be fished under a hard TAC and can rely on DAS
to control mortality on other stocks. This could result in increased fishing mortality on other
stocks that is not anticipated by the sector concept. This is because DAS are only part of the effort
control system, which includes gear restrictions, trip limits, and seasonal and year round closed
areas. Catch rates while using DAS without these other restrictions would likely be higher, so the
DAS cannot be expected to be an adequate mortality control. This would likely cause the No
Action alternative to have higher fishing mortality than the Proposed Action, as further described
below.
In addition to No Action, the action considered five options for allocating TAC to sectors.
Biological impacts differ between the options. Options 2-4 (i.e., allocation options that include
vessel capacity in addition to recent landings history have the potential that the resulting sector
TACs would result in landings that differ from recent landings patterns and represent a
redistribution of fishing effort among the groundfish fishery. This is particularly relevant for
Options 3 and 4 that would allocate potential sector contribution of all stocks to all vessels,
regardless of an individual vessel’s history of landing a particular stock. For example, under
these options, a vessel that fished exclusively in the GOM would be allocated a potential sector
contribution for SNE/MA yellowtail flounder even though the vessel never fished for yellowtail
flounder in the SNE/MA Regulated Mesh Area. Such redistribution of fishing effort could
increase catch of other groundfish stocks, particularly if participating sector vessels fish in areas
they’ve never fished in or target other groundfish species they’ve never targeted before. These
impacts would likely be mitigated by other measures proposed in this action, including ACE
trading, the prohibition on sector vessels fishing in stock areas in which they are not allocated
ACE for stocks within such areas, and the requirement for sectors to cease fishing operations
once their ACE is caught.
Under the No Action alternative, sectors would receive all ACE at the beginning of the fishing
year. This means that it would be difficult for NMFS to reduce ACE if an overage from the
previous year is detected after the year is over. This would increase the possibility that
overfishing would occur.
The different options, including No Action, may have different indirect impacts. If a sector is not
allocated ACE for all groundfish stocks within a particular stock area, participating vessels cannot
fish for groundfish in that particular stock area. This would reduce the catch and, therefore,
mortality of non-groundfish stocks. The opposite impacts may result if the Council selects an
option that allocates sectors ACE for groundfish stocks in all areas. Such impacts may be
mitigated at least in part by other provisions proposed in this action, including ACE transfers and
the requirement for sectors to cease fishing operations in a particular stock area once sector ACEs
for relevant stocks in that area have been caught. If sector ACEs are small and caught early in the
fishing year, there is the potential that sector operations may shift to targeting other fisheries in
other areas. If this were to occur, catch and, therefore, mortality on those non-groundfish stocks
would increase.

7.2.2.2.3.2

U.S./Canada Area

Under the No Action alternative, sectors would not receive a specific allocation of cod and
haddock on eastern GB, an area that is subject to management under the terms of an
understanding between the U.S. and Canada. This is not expected to have any direct biological
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

562

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Biological Impacts of the Alternatives

impacts, as it is primarily an allocation issue. It may have some indirect adverse impacts if the
lack of an allocation leads sector vessels to compete against non-sector vessels in a derby for the
available harvest. This could lead to increased discards of non-target species.

7.2.2.2.3.3

Monitoring and Enforcement

Under the No Action alternative, monitoring and enforcement requirements would remain as
described in Amendment 13 (NEFMC 2003). While this document established broad principles
for sector monitoring; it did not provide many details. If the No Action alternative were selected,
information on sector catches would be less reliable because of a lack of dockside and at-sea
observations. It is possible sectors could exceed their ACE and overfishing could result.
Under No Action, sectors would not be required to land all legal-size groundfish. This could
encourage high-grading and lead to increased catches that, if not adequately monitored, could
lead to overfishing.
With respect to accounting for sector discards prior to adoption of an at-sea monitoring program,
two approaches were included in this amendment. The non-selected approach (Option 1) applies
an estimated discard rate to sector landings on a trip-by-trip basis. This discard rate will be
determined using the discard rates determined by the last assessment, by gear when available.
Table 194 shows these estimates that were derived in the GARM III assessments. These may not
be the values used by NMFS as discard ratios can be calculated several different ways. These
values use the discards by gear divided by the kept by gear for the same stock. With the initiation
of additional sectors, this discard rate will be based on fishing activity prior to implementation of
the new sectors. Many of the discards during this period are caused by regulations (trip limits,
quotas, etc.) that sectors will not be required to adhere to. As a result, it is likely that these discard
rates will be higher than those experienced by the sector and using this rate will over-estimate
sector catches. Support for this assumption can be found in the experience of the Fixed Gear
Sector in FY 2007, where it appears that discard rates for permits in the sector may have been
lower than when those permits were not in the sector (see section 6.2.4.2.2). This could help
reduce fishing mortality, since the catches that are applied against ACE are likely to be higher
than actual catches, and sectors may have to stop fishing earlier as a result.
Another possibility, however, is that while this may hold true while sectors have sufficient ACE
available to continue fishing, as they approach an ACE that could result in stopping fishing,
discard rates might increase above those used in the estimated discard rate. For this reason, the
use of an estimated discard rate is intended to be a temporary measure. Sectors will be required to
develop a monitoring system that meets NMFS standards that will adequately monitor discards by
sector vessels. Standards will be developed and published to facilitate the development of such
systems. Once the system is developed, a sector will be required to use it, which should improve
discard estimation for sectors.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

563

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Biological Impacts of the Alternatives

Table 194 – Ratio of discards to kept for stocks allocated to sectors based on GARM III estimates for
CY 2007

Note: (1) Overall discard rate because gear-specific estimate not available

Gear
Species

Stock
Trawl

Gillnet

Longline

GOM

0.22

0.09

0.13

0.34

0.03

0.28(1)

GOM

0.01

0.10

0.70

0.22

0.27

CC/GOM

0.25

0.20

0.37

0.00

SNE/MA

0.40

5.00

American Plaice

0.23

0.24

Witch Flounder

0.05

Cod
Haddock
Yellowtail Flounder

Winter Flounder

GOM

0.18

0.01

0.07

0.25

SNE/MA

0.05
0.47(1)

Redfish
White hake

0.02

0.47(1)
0.01

0.41(1)

Pollock

7.2.2.2.3.4

Transfer of Catch Entitlements

The Proposed Action will allow sectors to transfer ACE between sectors and allows sectors to
trade ACE for a brief period after the end of the fishing year, to “balance the books” and avoid an
overage penalty. Under the No Action alternative, neither transfers nor carry-over would be
allowed.
As discussed in section 7.2.1.2.3.4, allowing carry-over of ACE does increase the risk that
overfishing may occur in subsequent years. The cause is that the catch allowed, including carryover, may be higher than can be supported. This risk is greater if a stock is declining in size. As a
result, under the No Action alternative, this type of risk is lower. But the No Action alternative
could affect fishing behavior in negative ways. As noted in Sanchirico et al (2006), a carry-over
reduces the incentive for fishermen to fish right up to the ACE, which can lead to overages or
discarding.
The lack of the ability to transfer ACE between sectors may lead to discarding as fishermen
cannot acquire additional ACE to account for inadvertent overages (Sanchirico et al (2006)).
The No Action alternative was not expected to have direct impacts on non-groundfish stocks.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

564

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Biological Impacts of the Alternatives

7.2.2.2.3.5

Participation in Special Management Programs

These measures describe sector participation in special management programs. Currently, with
the exception of the Closed Area I Hook Gear Haddock SAP, there are no provisions that affect
sector participation in special management programs. Accordingly, the No Action alternative
would not result in additional biological impacts beyond those previously analyzed in earlier
actions.

7.2.2.2.3.6 Interaction with Common Pool Vessels/Universal
Exemptions
This section specifies the measures from which sectors cannot be excused, as well as those
measures that that all sectors do not need to adhere to and so receive an automatic exemption. No
changes were considered to the list of measures from which a sector cannot be excused. No
alternatives were considered for these measures.
This Proposed Action specifies management measures that do not apply to all sector vessels. The
No Action alternative would not have adopted this list of universal exemptions. For most of the
exemptions, it is probable that there is little practical difference in the biological impacts of the
Proposed Action as compared to the No Action alternative. That is because sectors would have
requested, and likely received, an exemption from trip limits, DAS, seasonal closed areas, and the
requirement to use six and a half inch mesh codends when fishing with selective trawl gear.
It is less certain that sectors would have received an exemption from the GOM rolling closures, if
requested. If NMFS declined those requests, then the No Action alternative would provide
additional protection to spawning fish as compared to the Proposed Action. Howell et al. (2008)
reported results of a cod mark and recapture experiment conducted in the Western GOM. They
concluded that several of the rolling closures were appropriately timed and located to protect
spawning cod aggregations. Since the No Action alternative maintains all of these current
closures for sector vessels, it would provide additional protection to spawning cod that is not
provided by the Proposed Action.

7.2.2.2.3.7

Movement Between Sectors

No alternatives to the Proposed Action (the No Action alternative) were considered.

7.2.2.2.4 Reporting Requirements
This action proposes several modifications to reporting requirements. The No Action alternative
would have maintained the current reporting system. Because under the current system discards
are not determined until some point after the fishing year is completed, the No Action alternative
would have made it more likely that catches might exceed ACLs, increasing the risk of
overfishing. Two sub-options were considered for determining the discard rate that is applied to
each trip. The non-selected alternative (Sub-option A) would use a rate based on the most recent
assessment. Because the most recent assessment may be several years old, there will considerable
uncertainty if this estimate is used. In addition, this estimate will be based on all fishing activity,
including that within sectors, and may not reflect the discards that occur in fishing outside of
sectors. While the information that is currently available from GARM III reflects discard rates
when most vessels were subject to trip limits, after implementation of this amendment it is
possible that many vessels will operate within sectors, will not be subject to trip limits, and may
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

565

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Biological Impacts of the Alternatives

have lower discard rates than non-sector vessels as a result. Unless the assessment reports discard
rates for sector and non-sector vessels, the overall discard rate will reflect a mix of fishing
activity: some subject to trip limits and some not subject to trip limits. Presumably this overall
rate will be lower than the rate for vessels subject to trip limits. Since non-sector boats are subject
to trip limits, using the assessment discard rate might bias the discard estimate low – unless
sectors discard to avoid exceeding a sector TAC and closing their fishing year. This option would
be expected to result in a less accurate discard estimate, but it is not clear that there will be a
consistent bias in the estimate: it may be either too high or too low.
The No Action alternative would not have adopted broad reporting areas that should help with the
assignment of catch to stock area; as a result, uncertainty over the correct attribution of the catch
of a species to a stock would continue.
Selecting these options would not have direct impacts on non-groundfish stocks.

7.2.2.2.4.1 Allocation of Groundfish to the Commercial and Recreational
Groundfish Fisheries
This measure considered two options for allocating specific groundfish stocks between the
recreational and commercial components of the fishery.

7.2.2.2.4.2

Option 1 – No Action

No additional biological impacts are expected if this option were adopted. The lack of an
allocation between the commercial and recreational components of the fishery, while it does
simplify the design of management measures, may make them less effective. In the absence of an
allocation management actions have attempted to achieve similar mortality changes from each
sub-component. The result of this approach is that the measures do not specifically target the
component that may be responsible for the mortality overage. As a result, the measures may not
be correctly designed if a component’s contribution to mortality is changing over time.
Selecting this option will not have direct impacts on non-groundfish stocks.

7.2.2.2.5 Changes to the DAS Transfer and Leasing Programs

7.2.2.2.5.1

Option 1 - No Action

No additional biological impacts would be expected if the DAS transfer and leasing programs are
not modified. The No Action alternative would have maintained the regulation that prevented
permits in the CPH category from participating in the DAS transfer and leasing programs. Since
the experience has been that some permit holders continue to keep permits in this category, the
expectation is that the No Action alternative would have am marginally lower amount of effort
available to the fishery, resulting in minor reductions in fishing mortality when compared to the
Proposed Action.
Adopting the No Action alternative would also have maintained the cap on the number of DAS
that can be leased by a permit. While removing the cap was not considered in the draft
amendment, this action proposes to remove the cap. By limiting the number of DAS that each
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

566

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Biological Impacts of the Alternatives

permit can acquire through leasing the cap may have helped limit shifts in effort that can take
place as a result of the DAS leasing program. This may have helped control fishing mortality on
some stocks, but the exact impacts are uncertain. As discussed in section 7.2.1.2.6.3, the CAM
used to design effort controls used input data that was limited by the existing DAS leasing cap.
Keeping the cap in place means there would be less uncertainty about the results of the CAM and
whether the effort controls are adequate to control fishing mortality for common pool vessels.
Selecting this option will not have direct impacts on non-groundfish stocks.

7.2.2.2.5.2

Option 2 – DAS Transfer Program Conservation Tax Change

This measure – which was included in the Proposed Action – included a sub-option for the
treatment of permits that used the DAS transfer program in the past and as a result have been
subject to the conservation tax. This sub-option was not adopted and tube biological impacts are
described here. Sub-Option B would return the DAS that were lost to the conservation tax. SubOption B would increase DAS from current levels by the number of DAS that have been lost, but
the increase is not large. Sub-Option B would increase the available Category A DAS by 81 DAS
and Category B DAS by 66 DAS. This could result in increased fishing activity compared to
recent levels, resulting in harvesting more groundfish. Given the very small participation in the
transfer program to date, the change would be difficult to measure.

7.2.2.2.5.3

Option 3 – DAS Leasing Program Conservation Tax

The current DAS leasing program does not impose a tax on the leasing of DAS between permits.
This measure – which was not adopted - considered setting a tax that is equivalent to that used for
the DAS transfer program, the implication being that the DAS transfer program tax is not
completely eliminated (as is the case for the Proposed Action). Analyses of the DAS leasing
program for FW 42 concluded that the program was not conservation neutral, tended to shift DAS
to vessels that fish in the GOM or on GB, and likely increased fishing mortality on stocks in those
areas while reducing mortality on stocks in the SNE/MA area. At the same time, the analysis
found it impossible to reliably quantify the biological impacts of leasing activity. As noted in
section 6.2.3.7, participation in the leasing program has steadily increased: in FY 2007, 29
percent of the allocated DAS were leased and they totaled 42 percent of the DAS used.
Applying a conservation tax would serve to reduce the number of DAS leased that can be used.
This would result in a further reduction in fishing effort and could benefit stocks in the GOM and
GB areas. It is impossible to quantify the extent of this benefit.
Impacts on Other Species
If a conservation tax on leased DAS is imposed, the number of DAS available to fish for
groundfish will decrease. Catches of skates, monkfish, and spiny dogfish while using groundfish
DAS would also be expected to decrease. Reduced catches on groundfish DAS would benefit
those stocks.

7.2.2.2.5.4 Option 4 – DAS Transfer Program Conservation Tax
Exemption Window
In essence this option would have temporarily removed the DAS Transfer Program Conservation
Tax. The concept was to encourage vessel owners to take advantage of the transfer program
rather than to participate in the leasing program. The biological benefits would be similar to the
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

567

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Biological Impacts of the Alternatives

benefits expected if the tax is removed as in Option 2. The benefits might accrue more quickly if
vessel owners act quickly to take advantage of the exemption. On the other hand, the action might
deter future transfers by undecided owners: having missed the exemption window they may be
reluctant to be subject to a tax in the future.
Selecting this option will not have direct impacts on non-groundfish stocks.

7.2.2.2.6 Special Management Programs
7.2.2.2.6.1

Closed Area I Hook Gear Haddock SAP

Option 1 would not expand the area or season for the CA Hook Gear Haddock SAP. This is the
No Action alternative. When compared to the Proposed Action, the shorter season and smaller
area would be expected to result in lower fishing mortality for GB haddock. Selecting this option
would not have direct impacts on non-groundfish stocks.

7.2.2.2.6.2

Eastern U.S./Canada Haddock SAP

Under Option 1 (No Action), this SAP would expire and would not be renewed. As a result,
opportunities to target GB haddock would be reduced and catches of that stock would be
expected to decline. Participation in this SAP has been limited in recent years: GB haddock catch
in the SAP in FY 20005 was 416,000 pounds, declined to 20,000 pounds in FY 2006, further
declined to 0 pounds in FY 2007, and increased to about 125,000 pounds in FY 2008 (through
January 15, 2009). Allowing this SAP to expire may result in a slight reduction in GB haddock
catches and reduce fishing mortality by an imperceptible amount. It is not clear how this would
impact other groundfish stocks and other species. While allowing this SAP to expire reduces
opportunities to target GB haddock and this may result in increased effort on groundfish or other
stocks, there has been little participation in this SAP in recent years so any changes are probably
immeasurable.

7.2.2.2.6.3

CA II Yellowtail Flounder SAP

Option 1 of this measure is the No Action option and would not change the CAII yellowtail
flounder SAP. The major difference between the No Action alternative and the Proposed Action
is that under the No Action alternative the SAP is only open to facilitate targeting yellowtail
flounder when that stock can support additional catches. The Proposed Action allows access to
the SAP area to target haddock, even when the SAP is not opened for yellowtail flounder fishing.
As a result, the No Action alternative would be expected to result in lower fishing mortality for
GB haddock and other stocks caught in the SAP area. The differences for many other stocks are
expected to be minor, since the Proposed Action requires gear that if fished correctly is not
expected to catch appreciable amounts of bottom-dwelling species such as cod, monkfish, skates,
etc.

7.2.2.2.6.4

SNE/MA Winter Flounder SAP

Under the No Action alternative, this SAP would continue to be allowed. While difficult to
determine the biological impacts of the SAP, the estimated landings from this program in recent
years have been on the order 38 mt (see section 7.2.1.2.7.5). If the program were allowed to
continue, landings would likely be similar. The Proposed Action is not likely to eliminate these
catches; it is more likely to turn them into discards.
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

568

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Biological Impacts of the Alternatives

7.2.2.2.6.5

Category B (regular) DAS Program

Option 1 for this measure is the No Action alternative. If adopted, the Category B DAS program
could still be used to target pollock, a stock that is approaching an overfished condition. This
could contribute to excessive levels of fishing mortality for this stock. Catches of pollock in this
program exceeded one million pounds in FY 2007, or nearly 10 percent of the commercial
landings.

7.2.2.2.7 Periodic Adjustment Process
The No Action alternative does not change the administrative measures used for the periodic
adjustment process. It would not have any direct biological impacts on either groundfish or nongroundfish species.

7.2.2.2.8 Simultaneous Possession of a Limited Access Multispecies and
Scallop Permit
The No Action alternative was not selected. This alternative would have maintained the current
provision that prevents a vessel from holding a limited access scallop and groundfish permit at
the same time. No additional biological impacts would result. As compared to the Proposed
Action, there would be less uncertainty about the results of the CAM used to develop the effort
control measures for non-sector vessels.

7.2.2.2.9 Catch History
The No Action alternative would allow catch history to accrue to the vessel that lands the catch.
This is an administrative measure and is not expected to have direct impacts on fishing mortality.

7.2.2.3

Measures to Meet Mortality Objectives

7.2.2.3.1 Commercial Fishery Measures

7.2.2.3.1.1

No Action

Under the no action alternative there would be an 18 percent reduction in DAS, the Eastern
U.S./Canada Haddock SAP would not be renewed. There are many other elements to the No
Action alternative that are discussed in other sections. For example, see section 7.2.1.2.2 for a
discussion of the biological impacts of not including Atlantic wolffish in the management unit.
This section focuses on the effort controls for non-sector vessels.
The impacts of the 18 percent DAS reduction, seasonal and year round closed areas, and trip
limits were analyzed using the CAM. The results of the model suggest that the No Action
alternative will not achieve the mortality reductions necessary to rebuild all groundfish stocks.
Table 195 summarizes the results of the analysis; note that the targeted reductions in fishing
mortality have been reported in this table as changes in exploitation. The No Action alternative
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

569

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Biological Impacts of the Alternatives

would achieve mortality goals for GB haddock, GOM haddock, GB winter flounder, GOM winter
flounder, plaice, Southern windowpane flounder, CC/GOM yellowtail flounder, GB yellowtail
flounder, and redfish. It would fall short of the mortality targets for GB cod, SNE/MA winter
flounder, Northern windowpane flounder, SNE/MA yellowtail flounder, and pollock.
It is likely that discards of GOM cod would increase under the No Action alternative because the
trip limit remains constant. GARM III documented that discard rates declined between CY 2003
and CY 2004, declined further in CY 2005, before increasing in CY 2006. The decline in CY
2004 is coincident with an increase in the GOM cod trip limit. With the stock expected to
increase in the near future to levels not seen in thirty years, it is likely that catch rates will
increase and the low trip limit will lead to increased discards.
Table 195 – No Action changes in exploitation
Spec
AREA
Needed
No
Difference Action
%
Difference
COD
COD
HADDOCK
HADDOCK
WINTER
WINTER
WINTER
PLAICE
WITCH
WHK
WIND
WIND
YTF
YTF
YTF
POLLOCK
REDFISH

GBANK
GM
GBANK
GM
GBANK
GM
SNEMA
ALL
ALL
ALL
NORTH
SOUTH
CCGOM
GBANK
SNEMA
ALL
ALL

-50%
-37%
202%
24%
48%
-100%
39%
-46%
28%

-34%
-15%
-39%
-66%
271%

-17%
-16%
-19%
-18%
-19%
-15%
-20%
-16%
-16%
-17%
-19%
-21%
-18%
-20%
-18%
-17%
-18%

Impacts on Other Species
Because this option reduces groundfish DAS, catches (both landings and discards) of skates,
monkfish, and spiny dogfish while fishing on groundfish DAS would be expected to decline.
Counter-acting this tendency is that some vessel owners may choose to increase fishing activity in
the open-access fisheries of skates and spiny dogfish to make up for lost groundfish revenue.

7.2.2.3.1.2

Option 2A – Differential DAS and Trip Limits

Impacts on groundfish stocks
Option 2A extends differential DAS counting throughout much of the fishing area, maintains the
default DAS reduction, and adjusts trip limits for most stocks. Three variations of this option
were considered. The initial version of Option 3A was developed prior to the determination that
pollock was overfished. When this determination, was made, it was determined that Option 3A
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

570

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Biological Impacts of the Alternatives

did not meet the mortality objectives for pollock. The Council then considered two modifications
to this option. Both added a pollock trip limit and further reduced DAS. Either of these two
revised options would have met the pollock objectives.
Analysis in the CAM suggests this alternative (the two revised versions) would achieve the
targeted mortality reductions for all stocks with the exception of SNE/MA winter flounder and
Northern windowpane flounder (the estimated reductions for witch flounder falls within the range
of error assumed for the CAM). The CAM results may not fully capture the mortality reductions
for these stocks. The primary data input into the CAM is landings, and windowpane flounder is
only landed in small quantities. This limits the data available to the CAM and thus may not
completely capture the changes in exploitation that will result. The model also estimates changes
without taking into account differential DAS rates that may be encountered enroute an area. For
example, as this alternative is drafted, a vessel transiting the inshore GOM differential DAS area
is charged differential DAS at a 2.25:1 rate even when fishing will take place in an area at a lower
rate. As a result, the model under-estimates effort reductions that result from transiting these
areas.
Although the model results indicate that the reduction in exploitation of the northern stock of
windowpane flounder would not be sufficient to bring the fishing mortality down to a theoretical
Frebuild, the CAM indicates that exploitation will be reduced about 40 percent of the necessary
reduction to achieve the rebuilding target. In contrast to many other stocks in the complex, this
stock is principally a bycatch species, with landings representing only 12 % of the catch in
calendar year 2007 (Catch: 1,032 mt, Landings: 119 mt; GARM III). Because this stock is
principally a bycatch species with relatively low catch already, additional reductions in fishing
exploitation may be very difficult to achieve through reductions in fishing effort. Since 2000,
most of the landings have occurred in statistical area 525, south-central Georges Bank, and the
bycatch of this stock is likely higher during winter and spring when the species is distributed
across a broader area of Georges Bank. Most of the discards are in the large-mesh bottom trawl
fishery. The prohibition of retention of windowpane north will eliminate landings and eliminate
any incentive to target this stock. It should also be noted there is considerable uncertainty
concerning this theoretical rebuilding target. Indeed, the GARM III report included these
comments by reviewers that highlight the uncertainty over this projection: “Given that current
catch is mostly incidental and also given the high uncertainty of index-based assessments, it was
concluded that it was not appropriate to calculate Frebuild for this stock.” This action does not
adopt a specific Frebuild for this stock because of the scientific advice.
With respect to SNE/MA winter flounder the CAM indicates this option achieves a 73 percent
reduction in exploitation when a 100 percent reduction is targeted. While some additional
reduction may result from the elimination of the SNE/MA winter flounder SAP (section
7.2.1.2.7.4) this will not completely eliminate catches of this stock. Since winter flounder is
caught in other fisheries (small mesh, fluke, and scallop) the only way to eliminate all
exploitation on this stock is to prohibit all fishing in the stock area. The Council does not consider
it reasonable to forfeit all yields from other stocks for a marginal shortening of the rebuilding
program for this stock. A proposed interim action (74 FR 2959) considers closing an extensive
area to the use of groundfish DAS. According to the supporting EA, that approach achieves only
a marginal improvement in the reduction in exploitation (82 percent vice the 73 percent shown
here) and results in reduced yield from fisheries.
With respect to pollock, this action proposes to eliminate the ability to target pollock on a
Category B DAS program. In 2008, pollock catches were 9 percent of U.S. removals. These effort
controls thus need to achieve 91 percent of the needed reduction for pollock, or a 66 percent
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

571

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Biological Impacts of the Alternatives

reduction in exploitation. The additional measures considered were necessary to further reduce
pollock exploitation.
In contrast to the No Action alternative, this option is likely to reduce discards of GOM and GB
cod, CC/GOM yellowtail and SNE/MA yellowtail flounder, white hake, and GB winter flounder.
The option either increases or removes trip limits for these stocks, which should reduce
regulatory discards. It might increase discards of pollock by imposing a trip limit.
Table 196 – Option 2A changes in exploitation. Values shown are for three versions of Option 2A
considered by the Council.
Spec

AREA

COD
COD
HADDOCK
HADDOCK
WINTER
WINTER
WINTER
PLAICE
WITCH
WHK
WIND
WIND
YTF
YTF
YTF
POLLOCK
REDFISH

GBANK
GM
GBANK
GM
GBANK
GM
SNEMA
ALL
ALL
ALL
NORTH
SOUTH
CCGOM
GBANK
SNEMA
ALL
ALL

Needed
Difference

Option 2A
Action
%
Difference
-50%
-37%
202%
24%
48%
-100%
39%
-46%
28%

-34%
-15%
-39%
-66%
271%

-51%
-22%
-45%
-22%
-34%
-14%
-73%
-38%
-36%
-40%
-30%
-44%
-39%
-32%
-55%
-40%
-41%

Option 2A
W/30%
reduction
in DAS
-45.9%
-46.9%
-42.1%
-50.4%
-41.2%
-34.1%
-67.5%
-56.1%
-52.6%
-63.9%
-43.0%
-43.5%
-50.3%
-37.6%
-45.4%
-61.4%
-63.5%

Option 2A
W/35%
reduction
in DAS
-49.8%
-50.8%
-46.4%
-54.3%
-45.6%
-38.8%
-70.3%
-59.2%
-56.0%
-66.7%
-47.0%
-48.1%
-54.5%
-42.4%
-48.7%
-64.1%
-66.3%

572

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Biological Impacts of the Alternatives

GOM. Some limited access permit holders that do not have any Category A DAS may even
decide to relinquish their limited access permit and fish with a Handgear B permit, increasing
fishing effort albeit with a relatively inefficient gear. While the CAM suggests that the limited
access measures will exceed the needed reduction in exploitation and a small increase in handgear
permit catches could be accommodated, catches will need to be monitored to ensure that
mortality objectives are no threatened.
Impacts on Other Species
Because this option reduces groundfish DAS and expands differential DAS counting areas,
catches (both landings and discards) of skates, monkfish, and spiny dogfish while fishing on
groundfish DAS would be expected to decline as compared to the No Action alternative. Counteracting this tendency is that some vessel owners may choose to increase fishing activity in the
open-access fisheries of skates and spiny dogfish to make up for lost groundfish revenue. There
are only limited opportunities to catch these species outside the groundfish DAS system, though,
so it is unlikely that the overall catch of these species will increase if this measure is adopted. In
the case of monkfish, monkfish landings may decline because of the different allocations and
counting methods used for monkfish and groundfish DAS (see section 7.7.6 for an expanded
discussion of this issue).

7.2.2.3.1.3

Option 4 – DAS reduction and Restricted Gear Areas

Impacts on Groundfish Species
Option 4 reduces Category A DAS allocations, adjusts trip limits for most stocks, and adopts
large restricted gear areas. Analysis in the CAM suggests this alternative will achieve at least the
targeted mortality reductions for all stocks with the exception of GB cod, SNE/MA winter
flounder and Northern windowpane flounder. The CAM results show that the expected
exploitation reductions will far exceed those required to achieve the mortality targets. In the case
of Northern windowpane flounder, most of the catch is discarded. This limits the data available to
the CAM and thus may not completely capture the changes in exploitation that will result.
Although the model results indicate that the reduction in exploitation of the northern stock of
windowpane flounder would not be sufficient to bring the fishing mortality down to a theoretical
Freb, the CAM indicates that exploitation will be reduced about 58 percent of the reduction
necessary to achieve the theoretical rebuilding target. In contrast to many other stocks in the
complex, this stock is principally a bycatch species, with landings representing only 12 % of the
catch in calendar year 2007 (Catch: 1,032 mt, Landings: 119 mt; GARM III). Because this stock
is principally a bycatch species with relatively low catch already, additional reductions in fishing
exploitation may be very difficult to achieve through reductions in fishing effort. Since 2000,
most of the landings have occurred in statistical area 525, south-central Georges Bank, and the
bycatch of this stock is likely higher during winter and spring when the species is distributed
across a broader area of Georges Bank. Most of the discards are in the large-mesh bottom trawl
fishery. The prohibition of retention of windowpane north will eliminate landings and eliminate
any incentive to target this stock. The GARM III report included these comments by reviewers
that highlight the uncertainty over this projection: “Given that current catch is mostly incidental
and also given the high uncertainty of index-based assessments, it was concluded that it was not
appropriate to calculate Frebuild for this stock.” This action does not adopt a specific Frebuild for
this stock because of the scientific advice.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

573

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Biological Impacts of the Alternatives

With respect to SNE/MA winter flounder the CAM indicates this option achieves a 60 percent
reduction in exploitation when a 100 percent reduction is targeted. While some additional
reduction may result from the elimination of the SNE/MA winter flounder SAP (section
7.2.1.2.7.4) this will not completely eliminate catches of this stock. Since winter flounder is
caught in other fisheries (small mesh, fluke, and scallop) the only way to eliminate all
exploitation on this stock is to prohibit all fishing in the stock area. The Council does not consider
it reasonable to forfeit all yields from other stocks for a marginal shortening of the rebuilding
program for this stock. A proposed interim action (74 FR 2959) considers closing an extensive
area to the use of groundfish DAS. According to the supporting EA, that approach achieves only
a marginal improvement in the reduction in exploitation (82 percent vice the 60 percent shown
here) and results in reduced yield from fisheries.
With respect to pollock, this action proposes to eliminate the ability to target pollock on a
Category B DAS program. In 2008, pollock catches were 9 percent of U.S. removals. These effort
controls thus need to achieve 91 percent of the needed reduction for pollock, or a 66 percent
reduction in exploitation. Additional measures would be needed to reduce exploitation for pollock
before this option could be selected as the Proposed Action.
The CAM model results do not include the impacts of restricted gear areas and the gear
requirements imposed for those areas. A number of experiments have tested the trawl gears
proposed for these areas. The results are summarized in Table 181. Note that not all of the
experiments have been subject to a peer review or published. Several of the gears show dramatic
reductions in the catches of flounders and other bottom-dwelling species. These reductions would
be in addition to the reductions estimated by the CAM. As an example, the catches of SNE/MA
winter flounder within the RGAs would be expected to be almost completely eliminated if the
gear performs in the commercial fishery as well as it did in experiments.
In contrast to the No Action alternative, this option is likely to reduce discards of GOM and GB
cod, CC/GOM yellowtail and SNE/MA yellowtail flounder, white hake, and GB winter flounder.
The option either increases or removes trip limits for these stocks, which should reduce
regulatory discards.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

574

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Biological Impacts of the Alternatives
Table 197 – Option 4 changes in exploitation
Spec

AREA

COD
COD
HADDOCK
HADDOCK
WINTER
WINTER
WINTER
PLAICE
WITCH
WHK
WIND
WIND
YTF
YTF
YTF
POLLOCK
REDFISH

GBANK
GM
GBANK
GM
GBANK
GM
SNEMA
ALL
ALL
ALL
NORTH
SOUTH
CCGOM
GBANK
SNEMA
ALL
ALL

Needed
Difference

Option 3A
Action
%
Difference
-50%
-37%
202%
24%
48%

-100%
39%
-46%
28%

-34%
-15%
-39%
-66%
271%

-41%
-34%
-42%
-39%
-36%
-35%
-60%
-36%
-37%
-39%
-43%
-56%
-47%
-41%
-45%
-38%
-39%

In addition to modifying effort controls for limited access fishing vessels, this option modifies the
GOM cod trip limit for vessels with Handgear A (to 750 pounds) and Handgear B permits (to 200
pounds). These permit holders are allowed to use both handgear and tub-trawls. The only limits
on fishing days are a requirement to not fish during a 20-day period in the spring. The period is
selected by the permit holder and can be taken during a rolling closure. This increase in the trip
limit is likely to increase fishing mortality from these permits. The Handgear A trip limit is nearly
as large as the FW 42 trip limit for limited access vessels (800 pounds). As shown in 6.2.3.3.1,
the number of Handgear B permits landing groundfish has increased and the landings of
groundfish increased from 68,427 pounds in FY 2004 to over 150,000 pounds in FY 2007. The
number of Handgear A permits landing groundfish declined from 44 in FY 2004 to 23 in FY
2007, and landings have fluctuated with a declining trend over the last four years. Even with this
increases, these two permit categories only account for a small fraction of total groundfish
landings.
While the Handgear A permit category is limited access, the Handgear B category is not. It is
possible that the increases in trip limits will attract more effort to these two categories in the
GOM. Some limited access permit holders that do not have any Category A DAS may even
decide to relinquish their limited access permit and fish with a Handgear B permit, increasing
fishing effort albeit with a relatively inefficient gear. While the CAM suggests that the limited
access measures will exceed the needed reduction in exploitation and a small increase in handgear
permit catches could be accommodated, catches will need to be monitored to ensure that
mortality objectives are no threatened.
Impacts on Other Species
Because this option reduces groundfish DAS, catches (both landings and discards) of skates,
monkfish, and spiny dogfish while fishing on groundfish DAS would be expected to decline as
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

575

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Biological Impacts of the Alternatives

compared to the No Action alternative. Counter-acting this tendency is that some vessel owners
may choose to increase fishing activity in the open-access fisheries of skates and spiny dogfish to
make up for lost groundfish revenue. There are only limited opportunities to catch these species
outside the groundfish DAS system, though, so it is unlikely that the overall catch of these species
will increase if this measure is adopted. In the case of monkfish, monkfish landings may decline
because of the different allocations and counting methods used for monkfish and groundfish DAS
(see section 7.7.6 for an expanded discussion of this issue).

7.2.2.3.1.4

SNE/MA Small Mesh Fisheries Gear Requirements

Impact on Groundfish Species
Option 2 proposed a requirement in the SNE/MA area that was designed to reduce catches of
winter flounder and yellowtail flounder by trawl vessels using codends mesh that is smaller than
6.5 inches. This is intended to further reduce mortality on both SNE/MA winter and yellowtail
flounder. It is particularly important for SNE/MA winter flounder since the management goal is
to reduce fishing mortality to as close to 0 as possible without completely closing all fisheries in
the stock area.. Reducing these catches should benefit rebuilding of these stocks.
The area selected for the proposed mesh requirement was based primarily on the observed discard
locations for SNE/MA winter flounder. Figure 131 shows that the proposed area overlaps the
locations for most observed winter flounder discards from 2002 – 2008. The exception is the
Great South Channel area east and south of Cape Cod. This area is in the Georges Bank regulated
mesh area and any cod ends that are less than 6.5 inches are only supposed to be used in approved
exempted fisheries with a bycatch.
The proposed gear requirement uses a net with drop chains to lift the opening of the net off the
bottom. This allows winter flounder that are encountered to slide under the net without being
retained. There are no experiments that have been conducted to test this specific net design. The
concept behind the net, however, is well documented. AS far back as 1984 the Northwest Atlantic
Ocean foreign fishery that targeted squid, mackerel, and butterfish was required to use “offbottom” trawl nets rigged with hanging line chains of 60 centimeters in order to bring the net
mouth off the bottom and reduce bycatch of prohibited species such as cod, yellowtail flounder,
summer flounder, etc. (see 50 CFR 611.50 published in 49 Federal Register 4213). More
recently, in certain areas the whiting fishery is required to use a “raised footrope” trawl that uses
42 inch drop chains and is rigged so that the sweep is longer than the footrope and the footrope is
off the bottom (see 50 CFR 648.80(a)(9)). This net requirement is most similar to that being
proposed.
The whiting raised footrope trawl fishery was first implemented by FW 35 (NEFMC 2000) and
then its use expanded into the inshore GOM by FW 38 (NEFMC 2003). Extensive experimental
work conducted to justify the use of the raised-footrope trawl is included in those two documents.
Regulated groundfish species catch in two experiments conducted in 1997 and 1998 was between
1 and 4 percent of the total catch. Flatfish species catch rates averaged between <1 and 24
pounds/hour. While these tows were targeting whiting in the Gulf of Maine and not the species
that will be targeted in the SNE/MA area, the experimental results demonstrates that the raised
footrope trawl can be fished with minimal catches of flatfish. Unfortunately, the framework
documents do not report any results of side-by-side tows with a control net so an estimate of the
reduction in flatfish catch cannot be made. The whiting raised footrope trawl design is also not
exactly the same as the proposed measure so while these results can be considered illustrative
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

576

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Biological Impacts of the Alternatives

they are not definitive. Because of the uncertainty over the impacts of this measure, it is important
to note this measure was intended to contribute to additional mortality reductions for these two
stocks and was not being relied upon to achieve mortality targets.
Impacts on Other Species
While adopting a gear that does not catch bottom-tending species would be expected to reduce
catches of monkfish and skates in the area that it is required, there is no experimental data to
support this expected result. The impacts on catches of spiny dogfish are also unclear. There is no
information on the impacts of the proposed changes on other species caught by trawl gear in this
area, such as summer flounder, black sea bass, scup, squid and butterfish. Pol (2001) reported
results from a limited number of paired tows using a raised footrope trawl. Generally, he did not
note any significant difference in catch rates of scup and squid, but did detect a possible change in
the size composition of squid with the raised footrope trawl catching smaller animals. Catching
smaller animals for a given quota would lead to higher mortality rates. Results are discussed in
more detail in section 7.7. With respect to summer flounder, presumably a net designed to reduce
catches of other flounders would also reduce catches of summer flounder. The likely response of
fishermen would be to use a 6.5 inch cod end rather than sacrifice all flounder catches. This
would change the size composition of the catch, reducing mortality for a given TAC: fewer, but
larger fish would be caught for a given quota, reducing the numbers of flounder caught. This
discussion, however, is highly speculative absent experimental data for the specific net
configurations proposed.

7.2.2.3.1.5

GOM Haddock Sink Gillnet Pilot Program

Impacts on Groundfish Species
Option 1 is the No Action alternative. If this option were selected then it is expected the sink
gillnet vessels will have limited opportunities to target GOM haddock and will be fairly
ineffective at doing so because of mesh size. Mortality from this gear component would remain
small.

7.2.2.3.1.6

Haddock Minimum Size

Option 1 – The No Action alternative - would keep the haddock minimum size at 19 inches for
both GOM and GB haddock. During periods when large year classes are present and if as a result
haddock grow slowly, this option would lead to increased discards. This occurred with the 2003
year class (see following discussion). This is not expected to have direct impacts on other
groundfish species, though the inability to effectively a large haddock year class might increase
pressure on weaker older year classes or other stocks.

7.2.2.3.2 Recreational Fishery Management Measures

7.2.2.3.2.1

Provisions for Landing Fillets

Two options to the Proposed Action were considered.
Option 1 would have allowed the landing of fillets with the skin off. It did not change the current
regulation that allows the landing of fillets that are smaller than the minimum size as long as they
were taken from legal-sized fish. In general, this option was not expected to have direct biological
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

577

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Biological Impacts of the Alternatives

impacts. If this change resulted in the landing of cod during closures (because skinned fillets
cannot be readily identified by enforcement personnel) it could have resulted in an increase in
fishing mortality and a degradation in data quality, affecting future assessments.
Option 3 was No Action. If this option was adopted, there would not be expected to be any
change in recreational harvest of groundfish.

7.2.2.3.2.2

Removal of the Limit on Hooks

Option 1 (the No Action alternative) would continue to limit recreational groundfish fishing to
two hooks per line. If this option was adopted recreational harvest would be expected to remain at
current levels.

7.2.2.3.2.3

Measures to Reduce Mortality

There are three alternatives to the Proposed Action that were considered to reduce recreational
fishing mortality for GOM cod.
Option 1 would increase the minimum size for GOM cod to 26 inches but does not change the
bag limit or season. The estimated impacts of this measure are sensitive to assumptions on discard
mortality and regulatory compliance. This option meets mortality objectives if discard mortality
is 20 percent or less. Biological impacts are similar for the different components of the
recreational fishery.
Table 198 – GOM cod recreational Option 1 biological impacts
Discard Mortality
Private Boat Party/Charter
Total
0
-32.6%
-32.0%
-32.4%
0.1
-29.3%
-28.8%
-29.2%
0.2
-26.1%
-25.6%
-25.9%
0.3
-22.8%
-22.3%
-22.7%
0.4
-19.5%
-19.1%
-19.4%
0.5
-16.3%
-15.9%
-16.2%

Option 2 would reduce the GOM cod bag limit to six fish per angler per trip. These impacts are
also sensitive to assumptions on fishing mortality, and the targeted reduction is met if discard
mortality is less than 10 percent. There are slightly different impacts between the private boat and
party/charter components of the fishery.

Table 199 – GOM cod recreational Option 2 biological impacts
Discard Mortality
Private Boat Party/Charter
Total
0
-30.9%
-23.7%
-28.9%
0.1
-27.8%
-21.3%
-26.0%
0.2
-24.7%
-19.0%
-23.1%
0.3
-21.6%
-16.6%
-20.2%
0.4
-18.5%
-14.2%
-17.3%
0.5
-15.4%
-11.9%
-14.4%

Option 4 is No Action. The short term biological impacts would be similar to the impacts of the
current fishery with respect to the level of fishing exploitation. The recreational fishery as well as
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

578

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Biological Impacts of the Alternatives

the commercial fishery would be contributing to fishing mortality levels that are incompatible
with those required to rebuild stocks in the required rebuilding period.
In addition to the Proposed Action, there were four options considered for GOM haddock. Option
1 would increase the minimum size for GOM haddock to 21 inches. Impacts are sensitive to
assumptions on discard mortality and compliance, but this option appears likely to meet the
targeted reduction at all discard mortalities between 0 and 50 percent. Impacts are similar for the
components of the fishery.
Table 200 - GOM haddock recreational Option 1 biological impacts
Discard Mortality
Private Boat Party/Charter
Total
0
-37.5%
-37.6%
-37.6%
0.1
-33.8%
-33.9%
-33.8%
0.2
-30.0%
-30.1%
-30.1%
0.3
-26.3%
-26.3%
-26.3%
0.4
-22.5%
-22.6%
-22.6%
0.5
-18.8%
-18.8%
-18.8%

Option 2 would implement a nine fish bag limit, per angler per trip. Impacts are sensitive to
assumptions on discard mortality and compliance. This option meets the targeted reduction at
discard mortality assumptions ranging from 0 to 20 percent. Impacts are similar for the two
components of the fishery.
Table 201 - GOM haddock recreational Option 2 biological impacts
Discard Mortality
Private Boat Party/Charter
Total
0
-24.0%
-21.1%
-22.5%
0.1
-21.6%
-19.0%
-20.3%
0.2
-19.2%
-16.9%
-18.0%
0.3
-16.8%
-14.8%
-15.8%
0.4
-14.4%
-12.7%
-13.5%
0.5
-12.0%
-10.6%
-11.3%

The biological impact of lowering the size limit from 19-inches to 18-inches may be expected to
increase recreational fishing mortality on Gulf of Maine haddock. The magnitude of this increase
depends on release mortality of haddock that will be less than 18-inches and angler response to
the size limit change. In the absence of an angler response and assuming full compliance with the
19-inch size limit, lowering the size limit would convert haddock that would otherwise have been
released into harvested catch. On party boat trips the percentage of released catch that measured
18-inches averaged 12% of total released haddock during 2005 to 2007. Assuming 100%
survival of released haddock and that the size distribution of released catch on other recreational
fishing modes is similar to that of party boat anglers, one estimate of increased mortality would
be equal to 12% of total released Gulf of Maine haddock. During 2005 to 2007 the total number
of Gulf of Maine released haddock (type B2, released alive) averaged 129 thousand fish. Thus
under these assumptions, the reduced size limit would result in an increase of 15.5 thousand
harvested haddock. This estimate was based on several assumptions one of which was full
compliance with the current size limit.
Available data indicate that approximately 10% of harvested Gulf of Maine haddock in the
party/charter mode was 18-inches; one inch below the minimum legal size. Note that retention of
haddock less than 18-inches was also observed, but fish less than 18-inches accounted for less
than 1% of harvested haddock. This suggests that some level of non-compliance with the 18-inch
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

579

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Biological Impacts of the Alternatives

size limit may be expected and that this non-compliance would most likely be associated with 17inch haddock. During 2005 to 2007 released haddock that measured 17-inches accounted for an
average of 43% of total released Gulf of Maine haddock in the party mode. If the observed
noncompliance rate is similar to that of the current limit then an 18-inche size limit may result in
additional harvest of 10% of 17-inch fish that would otherwise have been released. Accounting
for the haddock harvested at 18-inches harvest of non-compliant 17-inch haddock would increase
harvest by 5.5 thousand Gulf of Maine haddock.
Given the caveats and assumptions noted, based on 2005 to 2007 averages the 18-inch size limit
may result in an overall increase of 21 thousand fish representing an increase of approximately
6% in harvested Gulf of Maine haddock. Whether the change in haddock size limit would affect
angler demand for haddock trips is uncertain. Lowering the size limit would enhance retention
opportunities which may be an important motivation for angler demand in a meat fishery like
haddock or cod. If angler effort were to increase, then the increase in harvested haddock may be
expected to be higher than 6%.
Because the reduced size is likely to increase haddock mortality, Option 3 adopts a bag limit in
order to achieve the objective. This bag limit is set at seven fish per angler per trip. This option
appears to meet mortality objectives if discard mortality ranges from 0 to 30 percent.

Table 202 - GOM haddock recreational Option 3 biological impacts
Discard Mortality
Private Boat Party/Charter
Total
0
-33.3%
-23.9%
-28.4%
0.1
-30.0%
-21.5%
-25.6%
0.2
-26.7%
-19.1%
-22.7%
0.3
-23.3%
-16.7%
-19.9%
0.4
-20.0%
-14.3%
-17.1%
0.5
-16.7%
-11.9%
-14.2%

Option 4 would reduce the GOM haddock minimum size for recreational vessels. As discussed
above, this will likely increase recreation fishing mortality for this stock. It will not meet
mortality targets if a reduction is needed but if an allocation is not made to the commercial and
recreational components, or if the allocation years are FY 2001 – FY 2006, it will meet the
objectives. The increase in recreational mortality would range from 5.6 percent to 11.2 percent
for discard mortality assumptions between 0 and 50 percent. This option was essentially adopted
by reducing the minimum size for GOM haddock for both commercial and recreational fishermen
(see section 4.3.2.3).
The estimated changes in mortality for GOM haddock are calculated without respect to the
management measures for GOM cod. As there is evidence that cod and haddock are caught on the
same trips, the seasonal closure for GOM cod may also reduce haddock catches, while other
changes in cod measures may encourage targeting of haddock. These possible interactions are not
reflected in the impacts described above.

7.2.2.3.3 Atlantic Halibut Minimum Size
Option 1 (No Action) retains the current minimum size for Atlantic halibut of 36 inches (91.4
cm.). This is smaller than the median length at maturity. This may slow rebuilding of Atlantic
halibut but the impacts are likely immeasurable.
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

580

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Biological Impacts of the Alternatives

7.2.2.3.4 Prohibition on Retention of Atlantic Wolffish
Option 1 (No Action) would continue to allow Atlantic wolffish to be retained. Commercial
landings have ranged from 66 mt to 29 mt since 2002 and recreational landings have ranged from
10 mt to 24 mt during the same period. Fishing mortality is uncertain but overfishing does not
appear to be occurring. If No Action is selected these levels of removals would continue.

7.2.2.3.5 Implementation of Additional Sectors/Modifications to Existing
Sectors
Impacts on Groundfish Species
If No Action is selected for this alternative there will be no additional sectors and no changes to
the two existing sectors. If this occurs, most groundfish fishing vessels will continue to be subject
to the effort control system. This makes it more likely that the biological impacts described for
the effort control alternatives will be realized (see section 7.2.1.3.1). The two existing sectors will
not have their mortality controls modified and the biological impacts would be expected to be
similar to the current measures.

7.2.2.3.6 Accountability Measures

7.2.2.3.6.1 Commercial Groundfish Common Pool Accountability
Measures
The No Action alternative would not have adopted AMs for the commercial groundfish fishery.
This alternative does not comply with the current requirements of the M-S Act. If adopted, it is
expected that the management measures would be less certain to achieve fishing mortality
objectives and stock rebuilding would be at risk.

7.2.2.3.6.2

Recreational Groundfish Fishing Accountability Measures

Three alternatives to the Proposed Action were considered for this measure. Two of the options
are very similar and differ only in the process used to determine the AM and in the order that
specific measures are considered. These options are not expected to impact catches of other
species.
Option 1 proposes that the recreational harvest in fishing year 1 will be evaluated early in fishing
year 2. The Council will review this information and if there is an overage of a stock with an
ACL will develop a recommendation for AMs. These AMs will be either changes in season, bag
limits, or minimum sizes. The AMs will be implemented by NMFS as soon as possible. One
problem with this approach is that the AM may not be implemented before the end of fishing year
2. This means that if there is an overage in year 1 and measures are not implemented in year 2, an
additional overage may take place in year 2. As a result, the AMs will need to be more stringent
and the ACLs will need to be set lower to reduce the risk of overfishing by the recreational
fishery. An additional issue is that bag limits and minimum size regulations reduce the kept
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

581

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Protected Species Impacts of the Alternatives

portion of catch but do not have as large an impact on total removals. These factors will have to
be considered when choosing the AM.
Option 2 differs from Option 1 in two ways. First, the AM is selected by NERO without waiting
for a Council recommendation. This makes it more likely that the AM will be implemented more
quickly and will at least begin to address a year 1 overage by the end of year 2. In addition,
Option 2 gives precedence to a change in season which can be a more effective way to reduce all
parts of the catch and not just kept catch. This depends whether the season prohibits all
recreational fishing or just prohibits retention of a particular species.
Option 4 is the No Action alternative, and AMs would not be adopted. If this were to occur, there
would be no mechanism to adjust management measures as a result of exceeding an ACL unless a
framework adjustment or amendment was adopted. Because of the time required to implement
such changes, overfishing would be likely to continue for a longer period and rebuilding
objectives might be threatened. This could be addressed by exercising more caution in the
development of measures to reduce the risk of overfishing or exceeding rebuilding targets.

7.3

Protected Species Impacts of the Alternatives

The primary impact of the alternatives being considered in this amendment on protected species
is being driven by the magnitude and breadth of changes in fishing (reductions or increases
depending on the stock) that will are required as a result of the GARM assessment. Fishing
patterns and overall effort, in terms of the times, areas and fishing gears used will most certainly
change in response to the management measures that the Council adopts as a result of changes in
the status of individual stocks relative to their biological reference points. These changes in effort
will determine the overall and specific impact of the measures in the amendment on protected
species.
While some stocks will require substantial effort reductions to end overfishing or rebuild
overfished stocks, it does not necessarily follow that those reductions will automatically result in
overall reduced impact of the fishery on protected species. As the industry adapts to additional
restrictions in effort on some species, and increased opportunity to fish for others, the pattern of
effort will determine the fisheries’ interaction with protected species relative to its current level.
The impact of the proposed measures on protected species are difficult to predict with great
precision because it is unclear how fishermen will adapt to new restrictions on some activities and
increased opportunities in other areas. Therefore, the following measure-by-measure sections
will qualitatively discuss the likely or expected direction of protected species impacts, or
highlight those measures where even the direction of the impacts on protected species cannot be
predicted. The magnitude of the overall effort reductions, however, make it likely that
interactions with protected species will decline.

7.3.1 Protected Species Impacts of the Proposed Action
7.3.1.1 Updates to Status Determination Criteria and Formal Rebuilding
Programs
Revised status determination criteria (section 4.1.1), ABC control rules (section 4.1.2), and
revised mortality targets for formal rebuilding programs (section 4.1.3) will not have a direct
impact on protected species because they do not, in and of themselves, change fishing effort or
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

582

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Protected Species Impacts of the Alternatives

behavior. As such the alternatives under consideration will not directly impact protected species
compared to the No Action alternatives. Whatever impact indirectly precipitates from any
changes to status determination criteria or mortality targets will be discussed in the context of the
specific management measures the Council adopts in order to meet mortality targets derived from
the new criteria and control rules.

7.3.1.2

Fishery Program Administration Measures

7.3.1.2.1 Annual Catch Limits
The Proposed Action adopts a process for setting annual catch limits (ACLs) as mandated by the
M-SA. As such, it is a purely administrative measure with no direct impact on protected species.
Depending on whether those limits are greater or less than current levels on which management
measures are based, there could be an indirect impact, but such impacts would be the result of the
measures themselves, and not of the process of setting the limits.

7.3.1.2.2 Addition of Atlantic Wolffish to the Management Unit
On January 5, 2009, NMFS announced a 90-day finding for a petition, submitted on October 1,
2008, to list Atlantic wolffish (Anarhichas lupus) as endangered or threatened under the ESA, and
to request information to determine if the petition action is warranted (74 Federal Register 249).
This action proposes to include wolffish in the multispecies management unit, impose a
prohibition on retention of wolffish by commercial and (private, party and charter) recreational
fishermen, and to designate wolffish EFH. Depending on the outcome of the agency’s
determination regarding the petition, and its ultimate decision about listing wolffish under the
ESA, wolffish may, or may not be considered a “protected species”. If the finding is in the
affirmative, however, the Council’s decision to include wolffish in the management unit will
provide a regulatory mechanism to impose appropriate management measures, and will,
therefore, have a positive impact (see discussion below under section 7.3.1.3.7). If NMFS finds
that listing is not warranted, then discussion of the impact of the Proposed Action in this section
is not necessary.
There could potentially be indirect effects of the wolffish EFH designation alternatives on
protected species if they lead to habitat protection regulations that limit the use of particular
fishing gears in particular areas (e.g., capture of harbor porpoise in bottom gill nets or seals in
bottom trawls). However, no additional benefits would be provided for protected species by any
of the wolffish EFH designation alternatives because they would overlap entirely with existing
EFH designations for other federally-managed species which are already protected by existing
habitat management regulations. There would, therefore, be no impact of any of the EFH
designation alternatives on protected species.

7.3.1.2.3 Sector Administration Provisions
This action adopts a number of measures pertaining to the administration of sectors. Detailed
requirements are established for defining and forming a sector; preparation of a sector formation
proposal and operations plan; movement between sectors; allocation of resources; transfer of
annual catch entitlements; mortality/conservation controls; interaction of sector with common
pool vessels; sector participation in special management programs; sector annual reports; and,
sector monitoring, enforcement and transparency. Since these measures are administrative in
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

583

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Protected Species Impacts of the Alternatives

nature, they are as a group not likely to cause any impact on protected species, and there is no
difference between these impacts and those of the No Action alternative. To the extent that there
will be enhanced monitoring of sectors’ fishing activities through the use of at-sea observers,
including the establishment of standards for service providers, there may be improved
information regarding the interaction of such fisheries with protected species. The impact of
individual sectors on protected species is discussed below under section 7.3.1.3, Measures to
Meet Mortality Objectives.
One element of the administrative measures is worth further discussion. The Proposed Action will
automatically exempt sectors from some effort control measures. These include groundfish DAS
restrictions, trip limits, seasonal closed areas, and the requirement to use a 6.5 inch mesh codend
under certain circumstances. In addition, the Proposed Action permits sector vessels to fish in
some of the areas and months that are closed to common pool vessels by the GOM rolling
closures. This latter measures could have impacts on harbor porpoise takes to the extent gillnet
vessels in sectors fish in these areas. The Harbor Porpoise Take Reduction Plan (HPTRP; see
section 3.1.1.2 for a brief explanation) imposes requirements for sink gillnet vessels fishing in the
inshore GOM and SNE in order to reduce takes of these animals. While sector provisions apply
throughout New England and Southern New England waters, this discussion focuses on the
proposed universal exemption of sector vessels from some of the GOM rolling closures. There
are four management areas in the GOM where sink gillnet vessels are either prohibited from
fishing or are required to use pingers when fishing in these areas (pingers are devices attached to
gillnets that broadcast an audible signal, reducing interactions between the nets and harbor
porpoise). These areas and the requirements are illustrated in Figure 146. On July 21, 2009,
NOAA proposed modifications to the HPTRT that add additional areas and times when pingers
are required. In addition to expanding areas in the vicinity of Stellwagen Bank National Marine
Sanctuary and east of Cape Cod, the proposed regulations include “consequence” areas: areas
with additional requirements if takes are too high for two consecutive years. Figure 147 and
Figure 148 show the proposed areas with and without the consequence areas.
While Amendment 16 proposes to exempt sector vessels from the GOM rolling closures, it
cannot (and does not) exempt sector gillnet vessels from complying with the HPTRP. As such, it
does not modify any closures adopted by the HPTRP (such as the existing March closure of
Massachusetts Bay). With respect to the current HPTRP, allowing sector vessels access to GOM
rolling closure areas could result in increased sink gillnet activity (with pingers required) in
portions of the following HPTRP management areas:
Offshore Management Area: March
Midcoast Management Area: April, May
Massachusetts Bay Management Area: May
With respect to the Preferred Alternative modifications to the HPTRP, allowing sector vessels
access to GOM rolling closures could result in increased sink gillnet activity in the modified areas
(with pingers required; in addition to those described above):
Stellwagen Bank Management Area: April, May
Massachusetts Bay Management Area: November
Palka and Orphanides (2008b) summarized harbor porpoise bycatch rates for compliant sets: that
is, sets with all required pingers (Table 203). The only proposed management area with any takes
in compliant tows during the period 1999-2007 is the Midcoast area. For the areas combined the
bycatch rate for compliant tows is 0.031 harbor porpoise per metric ton of landed catch (hp/mt);
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

584

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Protected Species Impacts of the Alternatives

within the Midcoast Management Area the rate was 0.041 hp/mt. These data suggest that
allowing sector gillnet vessels into the Stellwagen Bank, and Massachusetts Bay Management
Areas may not result in harbor porpoise takes if compliance with pinger regulations is 100
percent, while takes would be expected to occur in the Midcoast Management Area even with 100
percent pinger compliance.
There is evidence, however, that compliance rates fluctuate and has never been higher than 80
percent (Figure 149; HPTRP EA 2009). Palka et al (2008a) reported that bycatch rates in the
Midcoast Management Area and the proposed Stellwagen Bank Management Area were 0.052
hp/mt and 0.040 hp/mt, respectively, from 1999 through 2007. This rate includes both compliant
and non-compliant sets. The highest bycatch rates were observed in February and November. No
takes were observed in the Offshore Management Area in recent years, making it less likely that
allowing sectors access to this area during the existing rolling closures will substantially increase
harbor porpoise takes.
According to the EA accompanying the proposed modifications to the HPTRP, bycatch rates of
harbor porpoise in the Massachusetts Bay Management Area in November were observed at a
rate of 0.052 hp/mt, a relatively high rate. If the proposed expansion of the HPTRP rules is not
adopted, then allowing sector gillnet vessels into this area can be expected to result in increased
harbor porpoise takes. If the HPTRP Preferred Alternative is adopted and pingers are required in
this area in November then the impact on takes will depend on pinger compliance rates.
Analyses accompanying the HPTRP Preferred Alternative estimated the harbor porpoise takes
that could be expected using observed rates. The analyses also assumed no change in fishing
effort as a result of revised HPTRP measures. It is possible that the provisions in Amendment 16
that allow sector vessels access to the rolling closure areas may change the distribution of fishing
effort. Any increase in sink gillnet effort within the Midcoast Management Area in November
might increase harbor porpoise takes during this month. If effort shifts out of February, however,
there may not be a net increase.
A critical factor on whether takes will increase will be the pinger compliance rates for sector
vessels. Sectors have a strong incentive to ensure compliance because if the consequence areas
are triggered then access to the GOM rolling closure areas will be lost. The HPTRP Preferred
Alternative includes management measures (the consequence areas) that are designed to meet the
plan’s objectives should takes be too high. The incentive for sectors to comply with pinger
requirements in order to maintain rolling closure access, and the consequence measures within the
HPTRP, suggest that the Amendment 16 sector provisions are not likely to have an adverse effect
on the HPTRP if some form of the HPTRP Preferred Alternative is adopted. This result is less
certain if the HPTRP Preferred Alternative is not adopted, but the specific HPTRP measures
adopted would have to be evaluated for a better evaluation. Ultimately, sector operations plans
and EAs that are tiered from this document will have to address impacts of their operations on
protected species, including harbor porpoise.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

585

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Protected Species Impacts of the Alternatives
Figure 146 – Summary of current harbor porpoise take reduction plan requirements

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

586

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Protected Species Impacts of the Alternatives
Figure 147 – HPTRP proposed management areas (without consequence areas)

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

587

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Protected Species Impacts of the Alternatives
Figure 148 – HPTRP proposed management areas (with consequence areas)

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

588

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Protected Species Impacts of the Alternatives

Table 203 - By region and over all three Gulf of Maine management areas, the number of observed
hauls, takes and landings (obs landings) and the resulting bycatch rate (number of harbor porpoise
takes/metric ton of landings) of hauls that had all of the required number of pingers and were
observed from 1 January 1999–31 May 2007. From Palka and Orphanides (2008).

Massachusetts Bay
Year

MidCoast

Number Number
Obs Bycatch Number Number
Obs Bycatch
of hauls of takes landings
rate of hauls of takes landings
rate

1999

5.35

232

65.50

0.046

2000

115

16.77

198

15.88

0.000

2001

7.00

109

21.29

0.094

2002

0.62

199

30.15

0.066

2003

0.94

4.46

0.000

2004

0.23

11.33

0.000

2005

4.59

134

29.30

0.034

2006

5.70

17.77

0.000

2007*

5.70

0.29

0.000

TOTAL

353

46.90

1057

195.97

0.041

Stellwagen Bank
ALL
Year Number Number
Obs Bycatch Number Number
Obs Bycatch
of hauls of takes landings
rate of hauls of takes landings
rate
1999

0.56

301

71.41

0.042

2000

0.04

314

32.69

0.000

2001

0.02

184

28.31

0.071

2002

0.38

208

31.15

0.064

2003

0.10

5.50

0.000

2004

0.95

12.51

0.000

2005

2.83

148

36.72

0.027

2006

2.16

125

25.63

0.000

2007*

7.38

141

13.37

0.000

TOTAL

118

14.42

1528

257.29

0.031

* Data in this row only from 1 January through 31 May 2007.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

589

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Protected Species Impacts of the Alternatives
Figure 149 – Percent of observed hauls that used the correct number of pingers per string in
times/areas when pingers were required. (From the EA for the HPTRP, 2009)

7.3.1.2.4 Reporting Requirements
The Proposed Action adopts a measure that requires all limited access groundfish vessels that are
required to use VMS to declare at the start of the trip whether they intend to fish in one broad
reporting area or multiple reporting areas. This proposal would not currently replace the VTR
reporting requirement. This proposal is purely administrative in nature, and as such, would not
have a direct impact on protected species, although improved reporting of the location of fishing
activity could enhance the understanding of fishery interactions with protected species.
The Proposed Action also identifies how discards by non-sector vessels will be estimated for
comparing catches to ACLs. This measure will not have any impacts on Protected Species, and its
impacts are no different than the No Action alternative.

7.3.1.2.5 Allocation of Groundfish to the Commercial and Recreational
Groundfish Fisheries
This proposal adopts a process for allocating the available catch to different components of the
fishery (commercial and recreational). It is administrative, and would not, in and of itself, have a
direct impact on protected species. Since the proposal is to use recent relative catch histories for
the two components to allocate shares of the overall available catch, the action items will, on the
surface, have no different impact than the No Action alternative on protected species. If, however,
and for whatever reason (poor data, evolving/changing relative effort, etc.), the actual allocation
results in an increased commercial share, there could be an indirect negative impact on protected
species compared to no action, if that increase would otherwise not have taken place and is
realized in gears/times/areas where there is potential for protected species interactions.
Conversely, if the commercial share ends up being less than what would otherwise occur, then
this process could be viewed as having a positive indirect effect, since recreational fishery
interaction with protected species is minimal or non-existent. The ultimate impact of this

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

590

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Protected Species Impacts of the Alternatives

administrative proposal, again, will depend on what management measures are adopted and how
fishing effort responds.

7.3.1.2.6 Changes to the DAS Transfer and DAS Leasing Programs
The Council is considering several changes to the DAS transfer and leasing programs.

7.3.1.2.6.1

Option 2 – DAS Transfer Program Conservation Tax

This action proposes to eliminate the 20% conservation tax on DAS transfers. It will also leave in
place any conservation tax applied to prior transfers (Option A). Only two DAS transfers have
taken place under the existing rules, which suggests that more DAS transfers would occur if the
tax is reduced or eliminated. This may not necessarily be the case, however, because any other
permits associated with the vessel transferring its DAS would be retired. In terms of protected
species impacts, therefore, this option has the potential to reduce overall effort (because of the
retired other permits) which would be somewhat offset if the transferred DAS would otherwise
have not been used. Nevertheless, it is impossible to predict with any reasonable degree of
certainty if, and how many, vessels would avail themselves of the reduced or eliminated
conservation tax, and whether any such transactions would be positive or neutral with respect to
protected species impacts. There is also the possibility of an overall increase in effort, with
potential negative effects on protected species, if a substantial number of DAS transfers take
place involving DAS that would otherwise have been inactive.

7.3.1.2.7 Removal of the DAS Leasing Cap
The Proposed Action removes the cap on the number of DAS that can be leased by a vessel. The
impacts on Protected Species are unclear. To the extent that removing the cap results in the
exchange and use of more DAS than would occur under the No Action alternative (which would
retain the cap), this measure could result in more DAS being used when compared to the No
Action alternative. Whether this leads to more interactions with Protected Species depends on
where the DAS are used, and by what type of vessels. In addition, other measures in this action
reduce allocated DAS by 50 percent, so it is not clear that removal of the cap will result in more
fishing effort than was used before Amendment 16.

7.3.1.2.8 Eligibility of CPH Permits to Participate in the Leasing Program
Under the Proposed Action, permits in the CPH category – that is, not assigned to an active vessel
– will be allowed to lease DAS to other permits. This may increase the pool of available effort
slightly. Given the magnitude of the effort reductions proposed in this action, this minor increase
in effort is not expected to have substantial impacts on Protected Species when compared to the
No Action alternative.

7.3.1.2.9 Special Management Programs
7.3.1.2.9.1

Incidental Catch TACs

The Council is considering modifications to the incidental catch TACs for some of the SAPs.
These changes were necessitated by changes in stock status determined by GARM III. These new
incidental catch TACs may further constrain fishing effort and may reduce interactions of the
fishery with protected species by vessels that fish in the SAPs limited by these TACs.
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

591

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Protected Species Impacts of the Alternatives

7.3.1.2.9.2

Closed Area I Hook Gear Haddock SAP Revisions

The CAI Hook Gear Haddock SAP was adopted in 2004 in Framework 40A. The protected
species impacts of the original program were described as follows:
Hook gear has accounted for interactions with threatened and endangered sea turtles,
although those species occur only rarely in CAI, making negative impacts an unlikely
scenario. Additionally, this SAP is scheduled to operate from October through December,
further reducing the likelihood of interactions with endangered turtles because of their
water temperature preferences. While there is overlap with right whale critical habitat,
hook gear is not implicated in entanglements with this species, which is most abundant in
the area from April through June. Further, experimental fishery data that preceded the
establishment of this SAP showed no interactions with any protected species. (Framework
40A, p.201)
Under the Proposed Action in this amendment, the area would be expanded, and the season
extended to the period May 1 – January 31. While extending the season of the fishery program
into the summer months, when water temperature is higher, increases the potential that there
could be sea turtle interactions, observed sea turtle interactions in this area are rare, especially
compared to the Mid-Atlantic region. Therefore, the impact of the Proposed Action on sea turtles,
is likely slightly negative compared to the No Action alternative.

7.3.1.2.9.3

Eastern U.S./Canada Haddock SAP Area

With the Proposed Action (Option 2), the SAP would be reauthorized and continued indefinitely,
unless changed by a future Council action, or unless closed for the season by the Regional
Administrator under the terms of the SAP regulations. While protected species interactions have
not been documented in the SAP, Atlantic white-sided dolphins have been caught in trawl gear
within the SAP area (Figure 150). None of these interactions have been documented during the
months the SAP is open – all occurred in the spring months when the SAP is closed. Indeed, there
has only been one documented interaction with a Atlantic white-sided dolphin east of 68-30W
during months the SAP is open, and this interaction was nineteen miles west of the SAP
boundary. Since there is no evidence of protected species interactions in the SAP area during the
months the SAP is open, but trawl gear is capable of catching Atlantic white-sided dolphins, the
impact of Option 2 is likely to be neutral or negative compared to No Action. This evaluation,
however, ignores the possibility that if the SAP is not open vessels may shift effort into areas
where interactions are more likely.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

592

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Protected Species Impacts of the Alternatives
Figure 150 – Observed takes of Atlantic white-sided dolphins in the vicinity of the Eastern
U.S./Canada Haddock SAP, 1992-2008

7.3.1.2.9.4

Closed Area II Yellowtail Flounder SAP

The Proposed Action modifies the CAII Yellowtail Flounder SAP to provide an opportunity to
target GB haddock in the SAP area, even when the SAP is not opened for targeting of yellowtail
flounder. The impact of the proposal on protected species is potentially negative based on the fact
that some vessels (i.e., non-sector vessels) would be using Category B DAS that they would
otherwise not have used, resulting in some net increase in trawl fishing effort. The magnitude of
the impact, however, cannot be determined because it is uncertain how many vessels would or
could participate in this program. Furthermore, under the terms of the proposal, if a vessel
exceeds any applicable trip limits, it must flip to Category A DAS, which would result in no net
increase in effort compared to no action.

7.3.1.2.9.5

SNE/MA Winter Flounder SAP

The SNE/MA winter flounder SAP described in 50 CFR 648.85(b)(4) is suspended until stock
conditions warrant its re-implementation. This SAP allows landings of small amounts of winter
flounder without using a groundfish DAS. It was primarily designed to reduce discards of winter
flounder in the fluke fishery. With the adoption of a rebuilding program for winter flounder, and
pending prohibitions on landing SNE/MA winter flounder, it is no longer appropriate to allow
any increased effort on this stock outside of the groundfish plan. Because the SAP may enable
limited targeting of winter flounder, the elimination of the Southern New England/Mid-Atlantic
winter flounder SAP could be somewhat positive for protected species if it reduces effort that
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

593

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Protected Species Impacts of the Alternatives

would otherwise occur as a result of vessels targeting winter flounder. More realistically, this
measure merely prevents vessels from retaining winter flounder on fluke trips that will take place
anyway, and there will be no benefits to protected species from suspending this SAP.

7.3.1.2.9.6

Category B DAS Revisions

This action allows vessels targeting certain species (GB haddock, GOM haddock and redfish)
while on a Category B DAS with certain required net configurations to use 6-inch mesh, which
will increase their catches of those target species. This action is not likely to have any impact of
the fishery program on protected species because the net modification will not change the
likelihood of protected species interactions compared to the No Action alternative.

7.3.1.2.10

Periodic Adjustment Process

This proposal would enable the Council to make changes via the framework adjustment
procedure to the ACL and AM process or implementation, the sector administration policies, or
reporting requirements, or other measures adopted by this action. While these are all
administrative in nature, and not likely to have any protected species impacts, all framework
adjustments must complete an environmental document that includes discussion of protected
species impacts of the actions being proposed.

7.3.1.2.11
Simultaneous Possession of a Limited Access Multispecies
and Scallop Permit
Under current FMP regulations, a limited access scallop vessel cannot also hold a limited access
multispecies permit, unless that vessel qualified as a “combination vessel” under the original
limited access permit program adopted in Amendment 5. While the proposal to allow additional
vessels to hold both limited access multispecies and scallop permits is essentially an
administrative change, there could be some impact on protected species, although, at this time,
the magnitude of that change cannot be determined, since it is unknown how many vessels would
avail themselves of this opportunity, and, relative to the current fishing activity, what type of gear
the vessel would use, and where and when it would fish.
On the one hand, the impact on protected species could be positive, since one of any overlapping
permits held by both vessels would be retired in the process of combining the multispecies and
scallop permits on one vessel. For example, if a multispecies vessel that also has a limited access
monkfish permit buys the permits of a scallop vessel that also holds a monkfish limited access
permit, one of the two monkfish permits would be retired. In this example, since nearly all scallop
vessels that hold monkfish limited access permits (185 vessels in 2007) do not use their monkfish
DAS because of the requirement to also use a scallop DAS when on a monkfish DAS, the actual
immediate effort reduction that would occur as a result of the retirement of the monkfish permit
would be much less than the number of permits being retired.
On the other hand, the impact on protected species could be negative, if the acquiring vessel
changes the pattern of effort such that the chances of interaction (with protected species) is
greater than it was when the two vessels fished their permits separately. For example, if the
scallop vessel currently fishes in times and areas where protected species interactions are
minimal, and changes that pattern upon obtaining a multispecies permit to times when such
interactions are more likely because it is now fishing for multispecies, then this provision would
have a negative effect on protected species.
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

594

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Protected Species Impacts of the Alternatives

The final effect of this proposal on protected species, whether positive or negative, ultimately will
depend on the number of vessels that avail themselves of this opportunity, the types of gears they
use, and how their pattern of effort would change relative to the spatial or temporal presence of
protected species. As such, the magnitude and direction of the impact of this proposal compared
to the no action alternative cannot be predicted at this time.

7.3.1.2.12

Catch History

This measure prevents catch history from accruing after implementation of Amendment 16. This
is an administrative measure and is not expected to have direct impacts on protected species.

7.3.1.3

Measures to Meet Mortality Objectives

This section discusses the potential impact of proposed effort-control option for common pool
(non-sector) vessels. This section also discusses the protected species impacts of a haddock sink
gillnet pilot program and a reduction in the haddock minimum size.

7.3.1.3.1 Common Pool Vessel Option 3A
The Proposed Action, Option 3A, eliminates differential DAS counting areas, reduces Category
A DAS by 50 percent from the FW 42 allocations, and counts all DAS in 24-hour increments (i.e.
6 hours is counted as one DAS, 25 hours is counted as two DAS, etc.). The category A/Category
B DAS split that results is 27.5%/72.5%. Most other current measures remain, including seasonal
and rolling closures and gear requirements.
In terms of protected species impacts, the option will result in substantial reductions in groundfish
fishing effort with an overall direct and positive impact on protected species. The magnitude of
this impact, as well as the individual protected species that might be affected will depend on the
number of vessels affected by these rules, i.e. those that do not elect to participate in a sector
program, and on where, when, and with what type of gear those vessels fish. That number cannot
be predicted at this time. The overall net effect will also depend on what fishing activities the
affected vessels engage in, in response to the reductions in groundfish fishing effort. This indirect
effect also cannot be predicted with any accuracy because individual fishermen will have a
different range of options, depending on their permits, and will make individual choices for a
variety of reasons.
In the existing 2:1 differential DAS counting areas in the inshore GOM and SNE, the impacts of
the effort reduction program are driven primarily by the change in DAS counting methods. On the
surface, reducing effort by 50 percent while eliminating 2:1 counting appears to result in an equal
amount of effort. This ignores that DAS are counted differently under the Proposed Action and so
any vessel that typically made trips of less than 12 hours in length will be forced to make fewer
trips under the Proposed Action. In particular, this will affect sink gillnet vessels that will use a
full 24 –hours of DAS time while setting nets. This should result in fewer trips in these areas,
which could benefit protected species such as harbor porpoise.
On the whole, the effort reductions of this option are expected to benefit protected species when
compared to the No Action alternative. They would likely be similar to the benefits expected
under either Option 2A or 4, the other alternatives to No Action.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

595

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Protected Species Impacts of the Alternatives

7.3.1.3.2 SNE/MA Small Mesh Fisheries Gear Requirement
The Proposed Action adopts the No Action alternative, and does not impose additional gear
requirements for SNE/MA small mesh fisheries. This is not expected to have an impact on the
amount or distribution of fishing effort, and is therefore neutral with respect to protected species
impacts, compared to the alternative.

7.3.1.3.3 GOM Haddock Sink Gillnet Pilot Program
This action establishes a pilot program to evaluate the potential for using 6-inch mesh sink
gillnets to target haddock in the Gulf of Maine. The program is restricted to January 1 – April 30,
and participating vessels will be required to use their Category A DAS. Additional restrictions
and requirements are described in Section 4.3.2.2. This proposal is of limited duration, FY20102012, and is designed to evaluate the effect of allowing smaller mesh nets to target haddock.
Since vessels will be required to use their allocated Category A DAS, this program does not
represent a potential increase in effort, and, therefore, is likely neutral with respect to impacts on
protected species. It is unlikely that the smaller mesh size that will be evaluated in this program
will alter the extent of protected species interactions, but the fishery will be monitored, and any
changes to protected species interactions will be documented and evaluated when the pilot
program ends. Participants will also be required to adhere to pinger and gear requirements as
outlined in the Harbor Porpoise Take Reduction Plan, and must comply with the weak link,
sinking/neutrally buoyant ground line requirements of the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction
Plan.

7.3.1.3.4 Haddock Minimum Size
The Proposed Action would reduce the haddock minimum size on commercial and recreational
vessels to 18 inches from 19 inches. Such a change is not likely to affect overall fishing effort,
nor how that effort is distributed, and, consequently, will not impact protected species
interactions, either positively or negatively.

7.3.1.3.5 Recreational Management Measures
This action proposes several changes to the regulations governing the recreational groundfish
fishery, including the ability to land fillets with most of the skin removed, the restriction on
multiple hooks, minimum fish sizes, and seasons. Since the recreational fishery does not have any
known impact on protected species, these changes are not likely to have any impact on protected
species.

7.3.1.3.6 Atlantic Halibut Minimum Size
This action increases the minimum size of Atlantic halibut on all vessels, both commercial and
recreational. This action will not affect overall fishing effort, nor will it have any impact of the
fishery on protected species. The impacts on Protected Species are not any different than the No
Action alternative.

7.3.1.3.7 Prohibition on the Retention of Atlantic Wolffish
As noted above in Section 7.3.1.2, NMFS is reviewing a petition to list wolffish as either
“endangered” or “threatened” under the ESA. This action incorporates wolffish into the Northeast
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

596

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Protected Species Impacts of the Alternatives

Multispecies management unit, and prohibits the retention of wolffish by commercial and
recreational vessels either year-round (Option 1). Depending on the outcome of the status review,
the impact of the prohibition option on protected species will either be neutral (if NMFS decides
not to list), or positive (if the species is deemed threatened or endangered). The Council’s
management approach to wolffish (designate EFH and prohibit retention) is similar to the actions
it has already taken with respect to another ESA-listed species under Council management,
Atlantic salmon, and will be positive with respect to the impact on wolffish while neutral to other
protected species.

7.3.1.3.8 Implementation of Additional Sectors/Modifications to Existing
Sectors
This action proposes to implement 17 new sector programs, and modifications to the two existing
sector programs. The impact of each sector on protected species depends on the gear used and the
time and area in which the fishery occurs relative to the presence/absence of protected species. In
addition, since sectors are primarily formed to realize efficiencies in the use of vessels out of the
consolidation or redistribution of sector vessel effort, such efficiencies may result in reduced
overall fishing effort. If that effort reduction actually occurs, there may be a positive impact on
protected species, to the extent that those fisheries had a prior interaction with protected species,
because fewer vessels will be fishing for less total time. In other words, if sector vessels are not
constrained by trip limits, or realize other efficiencies, there will be less fishing for a given total
catch, reducing the likelihood of protected species interaction. Neither factor contributing to the
analysis of potential impact on protected species (either the gear/area/time changes, nor the
efficiencies that will be realized) can be predicted at this time.
Furthermore, each sector proposal must be accompanied by its own Environmental Assessment
(EA), wherein protected species impacts need to be analyzed and discussed. This EA will be
tiered from the Amendment 16 EIS. That analysis should take into account the number of vessels
involved, the gears used, where and when the vessels will be fishing, and other consequences of
their becoming more efficient, including displacement of effort to other fisheries. Once those
factors are established for each sector, then the likely impact on protected species can be
determined.

7.3.1.3.9 Accountability Measures
Accountability measures are intended to ensure that ACLs are not exceeded, and, if they are, to
implement a management response to prevent further excesses.

7.3.1.3.9.1

Common Pool Vessel Accountability Measures

The Proposed Action adopts a differential DAS AM for FY 2010 and FY 2011 and a hard TAC
AM for subsequent fishing years for common pool vessels.
Under this proposal, in FY 2010 and 2011 NMFS would recalculate the differential DAS
counting for the upcoming year based on estimated catches relative to the ACLs. Depending on
those catches, the affected stocks (which will determine what areas the DAS will be adjusted), the
number of common pool vessels, and other variables, the direction and magnitude of any DAS
adjustment could vary from year to year. Therefore, the impact of this accountability measure on
protected species cannot be predicted. If effort is further restricted in times and areas where

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

597

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Protected Species Impacts of the Alternatives

protected species interactions occur, then the impact would be positive, and, conversely, if effort
is increased (by a reduction in the differential DAS ratio applied) the impact could be negative.
In FY 2012, a quota (hard TAC) AM for commercial vessels that are not participating in a sector
program would be implemented. Also excluded from this provision are vessels that have an
incidental catch of groundfish in other fisheries, such as the yellowtail flounder catch in the
scallop dredge fishery. The quota would be established for each stock on a trimester basis, based
on recent landings patterns. The trimesters are: May-August, September-December, and JanuaryApril. In any trimester when it is projected that 90% of the TAC for a stock will be caught,
NMFS will close the area where the stock is caught to all groundfish fishing with gear capable of
catching that species. Uncaught portions of a quota may be moved to the next trimester, but
uncaught portions of a stock quota will not be carried forward to the next year. Overages of the
quota in the first two trimesters will be deducted from the third trimester quota, while annual
overages will be deducted from the subsequent year’s common-pool quota.
The purpose of using a trimester approach, rather than an annual quota, is to spread the fishery
out over the year and avoid a prolonged closure at the end of the year. Whether this approach will
be successful at preventing a derby-style fishery, where vessels race to catch the fish before a
closure takes place, remains to be seen. If successful, fishing could continue at an acceptable and
steady pace throughout the year. If unsuccessful, because fishermen modify their behavior in
anticipation that the fishery could be closed, fishing effort would likely be more intense during
the first part of the trimester, and be halted upon reaching the quota.
The impact on protected species will depend on the overlap in distribution of such species during
times when the fishery is active versus times when it is closed (if that occurs). Being a trimester
schedule, if a closure occurs it would be in the second part of each trimester, but if and when such
closures are imposed, cannot be predicted. Furthermore, if vessels anticipate a closure, effort
could be more intense during the early part of the trimester. Additionally, vessels may shift their
effort to open areas in response to a closure, and the impact of such shifts on protected species
cannot be predicted because it depends on where and when those shifts occur.

7.3.1.3.9.2

Recreational Fishery Accountability Measures

The recreational fishery has no measureable impact on protected species, and, therefore, the
accountability measures would have no impact compared to taking no action. Pending the
outcome of the current status review for Atlantic wolffish under the ESA, the impact of the
recreational fishery on protected species may have to be reviewed in the future. As noted above,
however, independent of that review, the Council is proposing to include wolffish in the
management unit and to impose a year-round or seasonal prohibition on retention by recreational
(and commercial) vessels

7.3.1.3.9.3

Multispecies Sector Accountability Measures

As noted in the discussion of sector programs under measures to meet mortality objectives, the
impact on protected species of each sector, and, therefore, its accountability measures, will be
analyzed and discussed in the Environmental Assessment prepared for each sector proposal.
Sectors are required to stop fishing when they are projected to have caught their allocation for any
groundfish stock, and if a sector exceeds its allocation in a given year, and cannot balance its
catch and allocation through the trading of annual catch entitlements, then its allocation in the
following year is reduced by the overage. Therefore, the impact of this accountability measure on
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

598

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Protected Species Impacts of the Alternatives

protected species is positive since it ensures that fishing effort will not exceed the level analyzed
and discussed in the EA for each sector proposal.

7.3.2 Protected Species Impacts of Alternatives to the Proposed Action
7.3.2.1 Updates to Status Determination Criteria and Formal Rebuilding
Programs
The only alternative to the Proposed Action was the No Action alternative for revised status
determination criteria (section 5.1.1.1), ABC control rules (section 4.1.2), and revised mortality
targets for formal rebuilding programs (section 5.1.3.1). If these alternatives would have been
selected, they would not have a direct impact on protected species because they do not, in and of
themselves, change fishing effort or behavior.

7.3.2.2

Fishery Program Administration Measures

7.3.2.2.1 Annual Catch Limits
The only alternative to the Proposed Action establishing a process for setting annual catch limits
(ACLs) was the No Action alternative, which would not have adopted ACLs. ACLs are a purely
administrative measure with no direct impact on protected species. The No Action alternative
would not have any additional impacts on protected species.

7.3.2.2.2 Addition of Atlantic Wolffish to the Management Unit
On January 5, 2009, NMFS announced a 90-day finding for a petition, submitted on October 1,
2008, to list Atlantic wolffish (Anarhichas lupus) as endangered or threatened under the ESA, and
to request information to determine if the petition action is warranted (74 Federal Register 249).
The only alternative to the Proposed Action to add Atlantic wolffish to the management unit was
the No Action alternative. If Atlantic wolffish was not added to the management unit, and the
result of the NMFS review is to consider wolffish a “protected species, “ the No Action
alternative would mean that the only legal basis for providing regulatory protection to this stock
would be the ESA. This would constrain the ability of managers to protect this stock absent a
determination that the stock is a protected species.

7.3.2.2.3 Sector Administration Provisions
Failure to adopt the revised sector administration provisions – the No Action alternative – would
not be likely to affect protected species since most of the measures are administrative in nature.
One possible exception is that the No Action alternative would not adopt the changes to sector
monitoring requirements. To the extent that these new requirements lead to enhanced monitoring
of sectors’ fishing activities through the use of at-sea observers, including the establishment of
standards for service providers, the failure to adopt these requirements through the No Action
alternative may lead to less information on protected species interactions when compared to the
Proposed Action.
As noted in section 7.3.1.2.3, the Proposed Action would allow sector vessels access to some of
the GOM rolling closures, and could have impacts on harbor porpoise if sink gillnet activity
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

599

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Protected Species Impacts of the Alternatives

increases in those areas. The No Action alternative would not grant sectors access to those areas.
Impacts on harbor porpoise are likely to be more consistent with the analysis in the HPTRP if
access is not granted.

7.3.2.2.4 Reporting Requirements
The only alternative considered to the Proposed Action was the No Action alternative. The No
Action alternative would not adopt the requirement for vessels to report if they were fishing in
more than one reporting area on a trip. This proposal is purely administrative in nature, and as
such, would not have a direct impact on protected species. It is possible that the No Action
alternative would result in less accurate information on fishing activity than under the Proposed
Action, which would limit the understanding of fishery interactions with protected species.
The No Action alternative would also not adopt a process for estimating discards during the year
to track catches and compare them to ACLs. This measure would not have any impacts on
Protected Species.

7.3.2.2.5 Allocation of Groundfish to the Commercial and Recreational
Groundfish Fisheries
The No Action alternative to creating a commercial/recreational component allocation of certain
groundfish stocks was the only alternative considered. If adopted, there would be no limits on the
amount of catch that could be taken by either component; catch would only be limited by the
ACL. It is possible that if, as a result, commercial fishing effort increased and harvested more of
the available ACL, then interactions with protected species could increase. Conversely, if the
commercial share were to shrink and recreational shares increase, then this process could be
viewed as having a positive indirect effect, since recreational fishery interaction with protected
species is minimal or non-existent.

7.3.2.2.6 Changes to the DAS Transfer and DAS Leasing Programs
The Council considered several changes to the DAS transfer and leasing programs.
Option 1 - No Action
Under the no action alternative, no conservation tax is assessed on leased DAS, while a 20% tax
is applied under the DAS transfer program. Since this is the existing regime, the impact on
protected species will be neutral.
The No Action alternative would have maintained a cap on the number of DAS that a vessel can
lease. The impacts of this on Protected Species are unclear. The cap may limit the number of
DAS that are exchanged through the leasing program, and as a result may leave some available
DAS unused. But this does not appear likely as few, if any, vessels seem to have been constrained
by the cap.
Option 3 – DAS Leasing Program Conservation Tax
The Council considered setting a conservation tax on leased DAS equivalent to any conservation
tax applied to the DAS transfer program. A vessel that leases out its DAS does not lose any other
permits, and, therefore, the current program represents a potential increase in effort, proportional
to the number of otherwise inactive DAS that are leased out. In Framework 42 (April, 2006), the
Council noted that DAS leasing may have increased fishing mortality, but it is not clear if this
translated into increased risk to protected species. To the extent a DAS leasing conservation tax
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

600

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Protected Species Impacts of the Alternatives

would slow down or eliminate any effort increases that result from DAS leasing, the impact of
this option on protected species could be positive, but such an outcome is uncertain and
unpredictable.
Option 4 – DAS Transfer Program Conservation Tax Exemption Window
In a fourth option, the Council considered allowing the owner of multiple groundfish permits to
consolidate (transfer) the DAS and catch history of those permits into a single permit while being
exempt from any conservation tax that would otherwise apply. This exemption would be
available for a limited time only, after which any conservation tax applied to other DAS transfers
would also apply to single-owner transfers. Whether vessel owners will avail themselves of this
opportunity depends in part on whether a DAS leasing conservation tax is applied, under Option
3. If no tax is applied to leased DAS, an owner would most likely lease those DAS to himself, so
as not to lose the value of the other fishery permits that would be retired in a DAS transfer. Such
may also be the case if the tax applied to leased DAS is equivalent to the transfer DAS, even if
the transfer is done without a tax under this option, due to the residual value of the other permits.
The impact of this option on protected species, therefore, is probably neutral or at least
unpredictable at this time, since it is unclear whether and how many permit holders would avail
themselves of this opportunity. It is also unpredictable what the net effect would be if transfers
were done without a conservation tax, but all other associated fishing permits were retired in the
transaction.

7.3.2.2.7 Special Management Programs
7.3.2.2.7.1

Incidental Catch TACs

The No Action alternative would not modify the incidental catch TACs for the SAPs to reflect
changes in stock status. Most of these changes reduce available incidental catch TACs for stocks
that were recently determined to be overfished. As a result, it is possible that no adopting these
changes could lead to more effort used in the SAPs, and consequently could lead to more
interactions with protected species when compared to the Proposed Action.

7.3.2.2.7.2

Closed Area I Hook Gear Haddock SAP Revisions

The CAI Hook Gear Haddock SAP was adopted in 2004 in Framework 40A. The protected
species impacts of the original program were described as follows:
Hook gear has accounted for interactions with threatened and endangered sea turtles,
although those species occur only rarely in CAI, making negative impacts an unlikely
scenario. Additionally, this SAP is scheduled to operate from October through December,
further reducing the likelihood of interactions with endangered turtles because of their
water temperature preferences. While there is overlap with right whale critical habitat,
hook gear is not implicated in entanglements with this species, which is most abundant in
the area from April through June. Further, experimental fishery data that preceded the
establishment of this SAP showed no interactions with any protected species. (Framework
40A, p.201)
Under the Proposed Action in this amendment, the area would be expanded, and the season
extended to the period May 1 – January 31. The No Action alternative would not extend the
season or expand the area. Therefore, the impact of the Proposed Action on sea turtles, is likely
slightly positive compared to the Proposed Action.
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

601

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Protected Species Impacts of the Alternatives

7.3.2.2.7.3

Eastern U.S./Canada Haddock SAP Area

Under the No Action alternative (Option 1), the Eastern U.S./Canada Haddock SAP would
terminate on December 31, 2009 (it has been extended past 2008 by an interim action). While
protected species interactions have not been documented in the SAP, Atlantic white-sided
dolphins have been caught in trawl gear within the SAP area (Figure 150). If the SAP is allowed
to expire, then the reductions in effort in this area might lead to fewer interactions with protected
species. This evaluation, however, ignores the possibility that if the SAP is not open vessels may
shift effort into areas where interactions are more likely.

7.3.2.2.7.4

Closed Area II Yellowtail Flounder SAP

Under the no action alternative, this SAP would only open when GB yellowtail flounder was
available to support the SAP; additional opportunities would not be provided to enter the SAP
area to target GB haddock. When compared to the Proposed Action, this would result in less
fishing effort in the area and potentially fewer interactions with protected species . The magnitude
of the impact, however, cannot be determined because it is uncertain how many vessels would or
could participate in this program.

7.3.2.2.7.5

SNE/MA Winter Flounder SAP

If the No Action alternative was selected, the SNE/MA winter flounder SAP described in 50 CFR
648.85(b)(4) would not be suspended. This SAP allows landings of small amounts of winter
flounder without using a groundfish DAS. It was primarily designed to reduce discards of winter
flounder in the fluke fishery. It is unlikely that the SAP increases fishing effort because of the
small amounts of winter flounder that can be landed. Allowing the SAP to continue might slightly
increase interactions with protected species when compared to the Proposed Action if it results in
an increase in the number of trips.

7.3.2.2.7.6

Category B DAS Revisions

The No Action alternative would not allow the use of a six-inch cod end while on a Category B
DAS with certain required net configurations. This action is not likely to have any impact of the
fishery program on protected species because the net modification will not change the likelihood
of protected species interactions compared to the Proposed Action.

7.3.2.2.8 Periodic Adjustment Process
The No Action alternative would not adopt several administrative changes to the periodic
adjustment process. Because these are administrative in nature, not adopting the changes is likely
to have few protected species impacts.

7.3.2.2.9 Simultaneous Possession of a Limited Access Multispecies and
Scallop Permit
The No Action alternative would keep the regulation that prevents a vessel from holding scallop
and limited access multispecies permits at the same time (in most instances). When compared to
the Proposed Action, continuing this regulation could have negative impacts on protected species

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

602

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Protected Species Impacts of the Alternatives

Under the Proposed Action, any overlapping permits held by both vessels would be retired in the
process of combining the multispecies and scallop permits on one vessel. The effect may be to
reduce the number of vessels participating in limited access fisheries, which may reduce effort
and interactions with Protected Species. Under the No Action alternative, these permit
combinations are less likely to occur.

7.3.2.2.10

Catch History

The No Action alternative would allow catch history to accrue to the vessel that lands the catch.
This is an administrative measure and is not expected to have direct impacts on protected species.

7.3.2.3

Measures to Meet Mortality Objectives

This section discusses the potential impact of three effort-control options under consideration for
common pool (non-sector) vessels, plus the no action alternative. This section also discusses the
protected species impacts of SNE/MA small mesh fisheries gear change, a haddock sink gillnet
pilot program, and a reduction in the haddock minimum size.

7.3.2.3.1 No-Action, Options 2A, and 4
Under the no action alternative, the effort controls adopted by Amendment 13 and subsequent
frameworks would continue unchanged. These measures include a change in the Category A and
Category B DAS split (45/55 or an 18 percent reduction in allocated Category A DAS) that is
scheduled to occur in FY 2009 unless certain conditions are met: overfishing is not occurring on
any stock and additional fishing mortality reductions are not needed to rebuild any stock. The
additional fishing effort available under the No Action alternative would be expected to have
negative impacts on Protected Species when compared to either the Proposed Action or Options
2A and 4.
Option 2A uses a combination of differential DAS and a trip limits on a few stocks to achieve
mortality objectives; in addition, DAS reductions of 30 and 35 percent were also considered.
Option 4 reduces Category A DAS by 40 percent from FW 42 allocations. This results in a
Category A/Category B DAS split of 33/67. Most other current measures remain, including
seasonal and rolling closures and gear requirements.
In terms of protected species impacts, both alternatives to No Action would result in substantial
reductions in groundfish fishing effort with an overall direct and positive impact on protected
species. The magnitude of this impact, as well as the individual protected species that might be
affected will depend on the number of vessels affected by these rules, i.e. those that do not elect
to participate in a sector program, and on where, when, and with what type of gear those vessels
fish. That number cannot be predicted at this time. The overall net effect will also depend on what
fishing activities the affected vessels engage in, in response to the reductions in groundfish
fishing effort. This indirect effect also cannot be predicted with any accuracy because individual
fishermen will have a different range of options, depending on their permits, and will make
individual choices for a variety of reasons.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

603

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Protected Species Impacts of the Alternatives

7.3.2.3.2 SNE/MA Small Mesh Fisheries Gear Requirement
This option would require the use of 12-inch drop chains by small mesh trawl vessels fishing in a
portion of the SNE/MA winter flounder area. It will not have an effect on the level or distribution
of fishing effort, and is therefore neutral with respect to protected species impacts, compared to
taking no action (which was adopted as the Proposed Action).

7.3.2.3.3 GOM Haddock Sink Gillnet Pilot Program
The No Action alternative would not adopt a pilot program to evaluate the potential for using 6inch mesh sink gillnets to target haddock in the Gulf of Maine. Because the Proposed Action is
not expected to increase fishing effort, and does not exempts sink gillnet vessels from
requirements designed to reduce protected species interactions, the No Action alternative is
expected to have the same impacts on protected species as the Proposed Action.

7.3.2.3.4 Haddock Minimum Size
The No Action alternative would not reduce the haddock minimum size for commercial and
recreational vessels to 18 inches. Since the size change is not expected to affect overall fishing
effort, nor how that effort is distributed, the impacts on Protected Species of the No Action
alternative are not expected to be any different than those of the Proposed Action.

7.3.2.3.5 Recreational Management Measures
This action proposes several changes to the regulations governing the recreational groundfish
fishery, including the ability to land filets with some or all of the skin removed, the restriction on
multiple hooks, minimum fish sizes, bag limits and seasons. The No Action alternative would not
adopt these changes. Since the recreational fishery does not have any known impact on protected
species, not adopting the changes is not likely to have any impact on protected species. As a
result, the impacts of the Proposed Action and the No Action alternative on protected species are
expected to be the same.

7.3.2.3.6 Atlantic Halibut Minimum Size
The No Action alternative would not increase the minimum size of Atlantic halibut on all vessels,
both commercial and recreational. This action will not affect overall fishing effort, nor will it
have any impact of the fishery on protected species.

7.3.2.3.7 Prohibition on the Retention of Atlantic Wolffish
As noted above in Section 7.3.1.2, NMFS is reviewing a petition to list wolffish as either
“endangered” or “threatened” under the ESA. If possession of wolffish is not prohibited (the No
Action alternative), no additional protection would be provided to this species unless the status
determination results in it being classified as a protected species.
A second alternative that was considered was to ban retention of Atlantic wolffish for only part of
the year (September 1 – March 31 (Option 2)). Option 2 would provide a mechanism for
monitoring the status of wolffish by allowing some landings, while requiring those caught during
the colder months when discard mortality appears to be much lower, be returned as quickly as

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

604

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Essential Fish Habitat Impacts of the Alternatives

possible. While the protection for wolffish would be greater than under No Action, it would be
less than the protection afforded under the Proposed Action. .

7.3.2.3.8 Implementation of Additional Sectors/Modifications to Existing
Sectors
The No Action alternative would not adopt 17 additional sectors, and would not modify the two
existing sectors. The impact of each sector on protected species depends on the gear used and the
time and area in which the fishery occurs relative to the presence/absence of protected species. In
addition, since sectors are primarily formed to realize efficiencies in the use of vessels out of the
consolidation or redistribution of sector vessel effort, such efficiencies may result in reduced
overall fishing effort. If the sectors are not implemented, the expected reductions in fishing effort
are unlikely to occur, and interactions with protected species would likely be higher than those
from the Proposed Action.

7.3.2.3.9 Accountability Measures

7.3.2.3.9.1

Common Pool Vessel Accountability Measures

The No Action alternative would not adopt AMs for common pool commercial vessels. Ams are
not expected to have direct impacts on protected species, but potentially limiting groundfish
fishing effort they could reduce interactions with protected species. If AMs are not adopted, this
potential reduction in effort may still occur but would have to be adopted via a management
action - that is a framework adjustment or plan amendment.

7.3.2.3.9.2

Recreational Fishery Accountability Measures

The No Action alternative would not adopt recreational AMs. The recreational fishery has no
measureable impact on protected species, and, therefore, not implementing the AMs would have
no impact compared to taking the Proposed Action.

7.3.2.3.9.3

Multispecies Sector Accountability Measures

The No Action alternative for sector AMs is inextricably linked with the No Action alternative
for implementing additional sectors. This is because sectors cannot be implemented without also
adopting the provisions that require sectors to stop fishing after catching the ACE allocated to the
sector. The impacts on protected species of the No Action alternative are described in section
7.3.2.3.8.

7.4

Essential Fish Habitat Impacts of the Alternatives

Essential Fish Habitat is defined for four life stages of all managed species in the NEFMCs
Omnibus Habitat Amendment (Amendment 11 to the Northeast Multispecies FMP). Adverse
effects from fishing under the Northeast Multispecies FMP are possible for any species with EFH
overlapping the footprint of this fishery. Adverse effects from fishing under all other FMPs are
also possible if the footprint of those fisheries overlaps with areas designated as EFH for the
species in the management unit for this FMP. Sections 6.1.5 and 6.1.6of this document detail the

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

605

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Essential Fish Habitat Impacts of the Alternatives

species with EFH that are vulnerable to mobile bottom tending gears and discuss the effects of
fishing on habitat.

7.4.1 Essential Fish Habitat Impacts of the Proposed Action
7.4.1.1 Updates to Status Determination Criteria and Formal Rebuilding
Programs
Status determination criteria and formal rebuilding programs are administrative requirements, but
importantly they lay the groundwork for measures that alter fishing practices either through
allowing or restricting additional fishing mortality. The impacts of such measures on EFH are
addressed in response to the concrete measures that alter commercial and recreational fishing
practices.

7.4.1.1.1 Revised Status Determination Criteria
The M-S Act requires that every fishery management plan specify “objective and measureable
criteria for identifying when the fishery to which the plan applies is overfished.” Guidance on this
requirement identifies two elements that must be specified: a maximum fishing mortality
threshold (or reasonable proxy) and a minimum stock size threshold. The M-S Act also requires
that FMPs specify the maximum sustainable yield and optimum yield for the fishery.
Amendment 13 adopted status determination criteria for regulated groundfish stocks. It also
provided that these criteria would be reviewed in 2008. This amendment proposes new status
determination criteria based on GARM III and the DPWG.
Habitat Impacts:
Status Determination Criteria are administrative in nature and are not expected to have any direct
impact on habitats designated EFH.

7.4.1.1.2 ABC Control Rules
The proposed changes in the ABC control rules do not result in significantly different fishing
mortality rates over the long-term, and would not be expected to have any direct impact on
habitats designated EFH.

7.4.1.1.3 Revised Mortality Targets for Formal Rebuilding Programs
Amendment 13 adopted formal rebuilding programs for overfished groundfish stocks. The
amendment also called for an evaluation of rebuilding progress and an adjustment in mortality
targets to achieve rebuilding, if necessary. Mortality targets are adjusted as necessary by this
action to meet the rebuilding dates and probability of success adopted by Amendment 13 and
Framework 42. This section assumes that there will not be any changes in the rebuilding time
period or probability of success used to determine the target fishing mortality rates.
According to the GARM III assessments, the following stocks achieved their BMSY level (or its
proxy) prior to submission of this document, and this action acknowledges completion of the
rebuilding programs in the year shown:

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

606

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Essential Fish Habitat Impacts of the Alternatives

GB haddock (2006)
GOM haddock (2000)
Habitat Impacts:
Mortality targets are administrative in nature and are not expected to have any direct impact on
habitats designated EFH.

7.4.1.2

Fishery Program Administration

Similar to status determination criteria and formal rebuilding programs, program administration
options are administrative requirements that also influence measures intended to alter fishing
practices either through allowing or restricting additional fishing mortality. The impacts of such
measures on EFH are addressed in response to the concrete measures proposed that may alter
commercial and recreational fishing practices.

7.4.1.2.1 Annual Catch Limits
This action proposes to implement Annual Catch Limits (ACLs) as required by the M-S Act.
Habitat Impacts:
Annual Catch Limits are administrative in nature and are not expected to have any direct impact
on habitats designated EFH.

7.4.1.2.2 Addition of Atlantic Wolffish to the Management Unit
This action adds Atlantic wolffish (Anarhichas lupus) to the management unit for the Northeast
Multispecies Fishery Management Plan. Adding another species to the multispecies management
unit is administrative in nature and is not expected to have any direct impact on habitats
designated EFH.
The EFH designation proposed adopts Option 2; it would designate the most area and includes
the entire EEZ north of 41 N latitude and east of 71 W longitude. Potentially, larger areas can
result in more EFH consultations than smaller areas because they make more area amenable to
habitat protection from fishing and non-fishing activities. Also, designated EFH areas that
include more coastal waters lead to more consultations because this is where the majority of nonfishing federal projects take place. However, because all of the wolfish EFH designation
alternatives overlap entirely with existing EFH designations for other federally-managed species,
the addition of wolfish would not affect the number or effectiveness of EFH consultations that are
conducted for fishing or non-fishing activities. Fishing impacts on EFH are already being
minimized by management actions implemented under Amendment 13 to the Multispecies FMP;
adding Atlantic wolffish to the multispecies FMU, and designating EFH for this species, simply
extends habitat protection to include wolffish. In conclusion, therefore, there would be no habitat
impact of the Proposed Action or any of the EFH designation alternatives.

7.4.1.2.3 Sector administration provisions
The management measures proposed in this section relate to the process for establishing sector
allocations in the multispecies fishery. This section is intended to update Section 3.4.16.1 of the
final Amendment 13 SEIS (Sector Allocation). All of the sector policy changes proposed in this
section will be implemented at the beginning of fishing year 2010 (May 1, 2010).
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

607

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Essential Fish Habitat Impacts of the Alternatives

A sector allocation system would apportion part or all of groundfish fishery resources
(denominated in terms of catch) to various industry sectors. While vessels might be assigned to
sectors based on factors such as gear used, permit category, vessel size, homeport, area fished,
etc., this measure allows vessels to form sectors of their own choosing. Such self-selected sectors
might be based on common fishing practices, vessel characteristics, community organization, or
marketing arrangements, but this would not be required. Since self-selection of sector
membership would not necessarily be based on any common vessel or gear characteristics this
alternative offers a great deal of flexibility in the formation of sectors. A group of permit holders
would simply agree to form a sector and submit a binding plan for management of that sector’s
allocation of catch or effort. Allocations to each sector may be based on catch (hard TACs) or
effort (DAS) with target TACs specified for each sector. Vessels within the sector would be
allowed to pool harvesting resources and consolidate operations in fewer vessels if they desired.
One of the major benefits of self selecting sectors is that they provide incentives to self-govern,
therefore, reducing the need for Council-mandated measures. They also provide a mechanism for
capacity reduction through consolidation.
Habitat Impacts:
Sector administration provisions are administrative in nature and are not expected to have any
direct impact on habitats designated EFH. It should be noted that sectors do not authorize
additional fishing effort – they are merely a different way of allocating fishing privileges. Indeed,
analysis of the biological impacts of sectors suggests that sectors may actually lead to less fishing
effort as vessels operate more efficiently – if this occurs, then sectors might reduce the adverse
effects of fishing on essential fish habitat, but there is limited data to determine if this will
actually take place. Some concerns were raised during the public comment period that allowing
ACE transfers might have impacts on EFH. The argument is ACE could be transferred from a
sector that uses gear with few impacts to a sector that uses gear with more impacts. But the reality
is that such shifts in gear are not precluded by the current management system which allows DAS
to be transferred between any vessel of the appropriate size without regard to gear, and which
allows almost any permit to use any type of gear at any time (the exceptions are handgear permits
and Category D/longline permits). As a result, when compared to the No Action alternative of not
allowing ACE transfers to take place, there are no differences in the possibility that catch will
shift between gear types. Any changes in fishery regulations or fishing practices that may result
on the basis of sector-based management will be addressed in the regulations that implement a
particular sector, and in the EIS or EA corresponding to the creation or continuation of that
sector. Such NEPA documents prepared by the sectors (an EA or EIS) will be tiered from the
Amendment 16 EIS.

7.4.1.2.4 Reporting Requirements
This measure is proposed to add additional requirements for limited access groundfish vessels to
facilitate the monitoring of Annual Catch Limits (ACLs) and sectors. Two elements are included
in the Proposed Action: an area-specific reporting requirements option and an in-season method
to account for discards by non-sector vessels.
Habitat Impacts:
Reporting requirements are administrative in nature and are not expected to have any direct
impact on habitats designated EFH.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

608

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Essential Fish Habitat Impacts of the Alternatives

7.4.1.2.5 Allocation of Groundfish to the Commercial and Recreational
Groundfish Fisheries
The Proposed Action establishes an allocation of groundfish between the recreational groundfish
fishery (private boat/party/charter) and the commercial groundfish fishery for GOM haddock and
GOM cod.
Habitat Impacts:
This allocation may alter the distribution of fishing effort, and could potentially shift effort from
commercial fisheries that are more likely to have an adverse effect on habitats (e.g. commercial
trawling) to recreational fisheries with less overall impact on habitats (e.g. recreational
hook/line). However, any such shift in fishing effort distribution will likely be very small, as the
proposed allocation estimates are based on historical averages. Further, these will be focused
only on areas where stocks in the allocation scheme (GOM cod, GOM haddock,) are actively
fished. Allocating groundfish to the commercial and recreational groundfish fisheries are
expected to have minimal, if any, notable effects on habitats designated EFH.

7.4.1.2.6 Changes to the DAS Transfer and DAS Leasing Programs
This action eliminates the conservation tax on DAS transfers, currently set at 20 percent. In
addition, it removes the cap in the number of DAS that can be leased by a permit. It also allows
permits in the CPH category to lease DAS to other permits.
Habitat Impacts:
Removing the DAS transfer tax could lead to consolidation of groundfish permits onto fewer
vessels. This is unlikely to reduce groundfish fishing effort, but may reduce effort in other
fisheries as duplicate permits are cancelled when a transfer takes place and two groundfish
permits are combined. There may be some reduced fishing impacts in EFH as a result (not
necessarily within the groundfish fishery), but it is difficult to evaluate this with certainty. It is
always possible that the vessel with the combined permits may fish more frequently than the two
separate permits, or may use a gear with more effects on EFH.
Removing the cap on the number of DAS that can be leased by a permit may increase the number
of DAS that are exchanged in the DAS leasing program. This could lead to increased groundfish
fishing effort relative to maintaining the cap (the No Action alternative). It could also lead to
changes in the distribution of effort. Generally DAS transfers seem to shift effort to states
adjacent to the GOM (see section 6.2.3.7). Removing the cap may allow for an increased flow of
DAS to these areas, though it is not clear that any permits have been constrained by the existing
cap. In light of the overall effort reductions expected in this amendment, these changes are likely
minimal when compared to the alternatives not selected.
While at present there are few barriers that prevent a permit in the CPH category from being
activated in order to lease their DAS, these barriers appear to deter some permit owners from
doing so as there are vessels that remain in the CPH category. Allowing permits in the CPH
category to participate in the DAS leasing program may increase the number of DAS that are
available in the leasing market when compared to the No Action alternative, and could result in
the use of more DAS as a result. If this occurs there may be additional adverse effects on EFH.
These are likely to be minimal, as the number of permits and DAS that remain in the CPH
category is small relative to the total permits and DAS in the fishery.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

609

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Essential Fish Habitat Impacts of the Alternatives

Ultimately, changes to the DAS transfer and leasing program taxes not expected to have more
than a minimal effect on habitats designated EFH.

7.4.1.2.7 Special Management Programs

7.4.1.2.7.1

Incidental Catch TACs

7.4.1.2.7.2

Closed Area I Hook Gear Haddock SAP Revisions

The CAI Hook Gear Haddock SAP provides an opportunity to target GB haddock within the
boundaries of CAI. The season is extended, and the area expanded, in this action.
Habitat Impacts:
SAP participants have not harvested the available catch. The extension of the season and area is
intended to provide more opportunities to harvest haddock in this SAP. Effects of these
provisions are not expected to increase fishery impact beyond the baseline, and because this
measure regulates fishing by a gear type not determined to have an adverse effect on EFH, any
realized increases in fishing effort and/or any expansion of the area fished under this SAP will not
have an adverse effect on habitats designated EFH. There may be positive benefits if the
expansion of the SAP results in vessels shifting from gear with more adverse effects in order to
participate in the SAP.

7.4.1.2.7.3

Eastern U.S./Canada Haddock SAP

This SAP provides an opportunity to target GB haddock in the Eastern U.S./Canada area,
including a small portion of CAII. The Proposed Action extends the SAP.
Habitat Impacts:
The No Action option would prevent the SAP from operating, resulting in a marginal decrease in
fishing effort inside the SAP area. The Proposed Action extends the SAP but does not change the
current administration of the SAP, and would therefore result in no change in adverse effects on
habitats designated EFH from those effects noted under the baseline (No Action).

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

610

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Essential Fish Habitat Impacts of the Alternatives

7.4.1.2.7.4

Closed Area II Yellowtail Flounder SAP

The Proposed Action modifies the SAP to allow an opportunity to target GB haddock in the SAP
area even when the SAP is not opened to allow targeting of GB yellowtail flounder.
Habitat Impacts:
The option that allows for harvesting haddock specifies that the area will open only if the Eastern
GB haddock TAC has not been caught. Over the past seven years, this TAC has not been caught
in any one year, and it is logical to assume that this option, if implemented, would result in
increased fishing effort within the SAP area. The impact of the proposal on habitats designated
EFH is potentially negative based on the fact that some vessels (i.e., non-sector vessels) would be
using Category B DAS that they would otherwise not have used, resulting in some net increase in
trawl fishing effort. The magnitude of the impact, however, cannot be determined because it is
uncertain how many vessels would or could participate in this program. Furthermore, under the
terms of the proposal, if a vessel exceeds any applicable trip limits, it must flip to Category A
DAS, which would result in no net increase in effort, and consequent effect on habitats
designated EFH, compared to no action.

7.4.1.2.7.5

SNE/MA Winter Flounder SAP

This option suspends the current SAP for SNE/MA winter flounder until stock conditions warrant
its re-implementation.
Habitat Impacts:
This option would prevent further landing winter flounder on trawl trips in the SNE area while
participating in other fisheries without using a groundfish DAS. Given that this SAP did not
allow for relatively large landings of winter flounder in the past, the magnitude of the reduction in
trawling effort is not expected to be large. This program was designed to allow landings of small
amounts of winter flounder while participating in other fisheries in order to reduce discards. It is
not likely those trips will be avoided because of the inability to land winter flounder. As a result,
there aren’t expected to be any impacts on EFH as a result of this measure.

7.4.1.2.7.6

Category B DAS Program

This action changes the program to focus on GB haddock, GOM haddock and redfish.
Habitat Impacts:
This option contains a provision for reducing the minimum cod end mesh size to 6 inches when
using approved gears to target haddock. This will increase catch rates, allowing participating
vessels to catch more fish for a given unit of fishing effort. Overall, however, it is unclear if this
measure will result in any overall change in the amount of effort used under a B DAS program.
The total effort in this program remains constrained by a limit on the number of Category B DAS
that can be used in the program (3,500 total, with 500 in the first quarter and 1,000 in each
successive quarter). Recent activity has been a fraction of this total, with less than 1,000 Category
B DAS used in any year. In addition, much of the recent activity has been to target pollock, which
will no longer be allowed in this program due to the status of pollock. Another constraint is that
incidental catch TACs for several stocks remain low, limiting the ability of fishermen to make use
of this program. This action will not allow an increase in activity beyond that possible under No
Action, but could result in an increase in effort above that seen in recent years. This would have
minor or negligible impacts on EFH.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

611

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Essential Fish Habitat Impacts of the Alternatives

7.4.1.2.8 Periodic Adjustment Process
The periodic adjustment process is administrative in nature and is not expected to have any direct
impact on habitats designated EFH.

7.4.1.2.9 Simultaneous Possession of a Limited Access Multispecies and
Scallop Permit
At present, only those limited access scallop permit holders that qualified for a combination
vessel limited access multispecies permit are permitted to hold a limited access scallop permit and
a limited access multispecies permit at the same time. The Proposed Action would allow a vessel
to possess a limited access multispecies permit and a limited access scallop permit at the same
time, even if the scallop dredge vessel did not qualify for a limited access multispecies vessel
combination permit.
Habitat Impacts:
Analysis in section 7.4.1.2.9 of this document highlights the fact that this measure may induce
some groundfish permits to consolidate to vessels that currently fish primarily (or exclusively) for
Atlantic sea scallops. Such consolidation will not result in a direct increase in fishing effort, and
given that fishing mortality targets are achieved for both fisheries, it is not likely to result in any
overall change in fishing effects on habitats designated EFH. However, there is no prohibition on
the former groundfish vessel participating in other fisheries after the multispecies permit is
transferred. If this provision results in effort increases in other fisheries that use mobile bottom
tending gears (e.g. summer flounder), then there may be a consequent negative effect on habitats
designated EFH that overlap with those fisheries. The potential for, and likely magnitude of, this
outcome is unknown at this time.

7.4.1.2.10

Catch History

This measure prevents catch history from accruing after implementation of Amendment 16. This
is an administrative measure and is not expected to have direct impacts on essential fish habitat.

7.4.1.3

Measures to Meet Mortality Objectives

Measures are proposed to meet mortality objectives previously specified in this document. In
general, these mortality objectives will require a decrease, and often a substantial decrease, in
fishing mortality on most groundfish stocks. In that regard, nearly all measures detailed below
will result in less overall fishing effort and a consequent benefit to habitats designated EFH.

7.4.1.3.1 Commercial Fishery Measures

7.4.1.3.1.1

24 hour clock, Restricted Gear Areas

This Proposed Action eliminates differential DAS counting areas, reduces Category A DAS by 50
percent from the FW 42 allocations, and counts all DAS in 24-hour increments (i.e. 6 hours is
counted as one DAS, 25 hours is counted as two DAS, etc.). The category A/Category B DAS
split that results is 27.5%/72.5%. Most other current measures remain, including seasonal and
rolling closures and gear requirements.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

612

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Essential Fish Habitat Impacts of the Alternatives

Habitat Impacts:
This measure will alter fishing practices by requiring specific approved fishing gears in the
restricted gear areas. These gears are being required to minimize interactions with overfished
species that have a tendency to remain closer to the bottom. Therefore, it may be inferred that
these gears will have a reduced impact on the seabed. Additionally, this measure requires a
dramatic decrease in overall DAS allocations. While fishing effort does not likely change
linearly with DAS, such a substantial reduction in DAS will translate to a reduction in fishing
effort and will have benefits to habitats designated as EFH throughout the range of the fishery.

7.4.1.3.1.2

SNE/MA Small Mesh Fisheries Gear Requirement

The Proposed Action adopts the No Action alternative for this measure; does not adopt a
requirement for vessels participating in the small mesh fisheries in SNE to use gear that reduces
bycatch of flounders.
Habitat Impacts:
The purpose of this requirement was to raise the footrope off the bottom and reduce catches of
winter flounder. Since this requirement is not being adopted, the gear is not likely to be widely
used and there would be no changes in the effects of fishing on EFH in this area from current
levels.

7.4.1.3.1.3

GOM Haddock Sink Gillnet Pilot Program

This measure decreases the mesh size and places other restrictions on vessels fishing with gillnets
and operating in the GOM. It creates an opportunity for these vessels to target haddock. There are
no increases in effort – vessels must use allocated Category A DAS.
Habitat Impacts:
This measure is not expected to have any change in impact on habitats designated EFH relative to
the baseline period.

7.4.1.3.2 Recreational Management Measures
These measures affect fishing for groundfish using hook and line gear, which has been shown to
have no adverse effect on habitats designated as EFH. These measures are not expected to have
any impact on such habitats relative to the baseline period.

7.4.1.3.3 Atlantic Halibut Minimum Size
This measure increases the minimum size of Atlantic halibut to 41 inches.
Habitat Impacts:
Because there is no directed fishery for Atlantic halibut using mobile bottom tending gears, this
measure is not expected to have any impact on habitats designated EFH.

7.4.1.3.4 Prohibition on Retention of Atlantic Wolffish
This measure prohibits retaining Atlantic wolffish by vessels fishing under the northeast
multispecies FMP.
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

613

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Essential Fish Habitat Impacts of the Alternatives

Habitat Impacts:
Because there is no directed fishery for Atlantic wolffish at this time, this measure is not expected
to have any impact on habitats designated EFH.

7.4.1.3.5 Implementation of Additional Sectors/Modifications to Existing
Sectors
Sector administration provisions are administrative in nature and are not expected to have any
direct impact on habitats designated EFH. Any changes in fishery regulations or fishing practices
that may result on the basis of sector-based management will be addressed in the regulations that
implement a particular sector, and in the EIS or EA corresponding to the creation or continuation
of that sector.
Because in general vessels are expected to fish more efficiently within sectors, it is possible that
there will be a reduction in groundfish fishing effort if numerous vessels join sectors. This may
reduce adverse effects of fishing on EFH, but only if the goundfish vessels do not increase effort
in other fisheries.

7.4.1.3.6 Accountability Measures

7.4.1.3.6.1 Commercial Groundfish Fishing Vessel Accountability
Measures
The Proposed Action adopts two AMs for commercial groundfish fishing vessels that d not join
sectors. For FY 2010 and FY 2011, the AM takes the form of DAS adjustments, either through
the application of differential DAS or an overall DAS change. The AM is constructed so that
changes can occur in either direction – effort could increase or decrease, depending on whether
ACLs are not attained or are exceeded. If differential DAS are used, then the adjustment may be
applied to specific stock areas rather than throughout the fishery. Impacts on the adverse effects
of fishing to EFH will depend on the magnitude, location, and direction of any adjustments.
Increased in effort (through an increase in DAS or a reduced DAS counting rate) would be
expected to increase the adverse effects of fishing, will a decrease would do the opposite. It is
impossible to predict in advance which change will occur. It is notable, however, that total DAS
allocations (about 20,000 DAS if all permits remain in the common pool) will be less than the
DAS used in recent years (about 33,000 DAS). It is doubtful that given the need to rebuild stocks
any adjustment in the near future will result in more fishing effort than was used prior to
implementation of Amendment 16.
Beginning in FY 2012, the AM is a hard TAC system that can result in closing specific areas to
fishing activity. If closures are triggered because TACs will be exceeded, fishing activity could be
constrained and there could be temporary benefits to habitat. Quotas are also carried forward
within a fishing year if not exceeded in a trimester, so it is possible effort in some areas could
temporarily increase to harvest a TAC. Impacts on habitat are uncertain and would not be
permanent, since areas reopen in a following trimester.
With respect to sectors, the AM provisions are an integral part of sector operations. EFH impacts
are not expected.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

614

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Essential Fish Habitat Impacts of the Alternatives

7.4.1.3.6.2

Recreational Fishing Vessel Ams

Because the gear used by recreational fishing vessels has minimal effect on EFH, no impacts are
expected as a result of recreational AMs.

7.4.1.4

Summary of Essential Fish Habitat Impacts of the Proposed Action

The management measures that reduce DAS allocations for the common pool, and thus reduce
fishing effort ant contact of gear with the bottom will provide additional protection to habitat.
Similar reductions in groundfish fishing effort are expected to result from the implementation of
additional commercial groundfish fishing sectors. These sectors will be able to operate more
efficiently than vessels under the No Action common pool regulations. It is possible that while
overall effort is reduced the reductions in allocated DAS and formation of sectors may result in
distributional shifts in that effort – possibly into near shore areas – as vessel operators reduce
travel time to maximize revenue for each DAS. As a result, benefits to EFH may not be evenly
distributed. As noted above, other management measures could have impacts on EFH as well.
The following table summarizes the expected impacts of the Proposed Action on EFH. Overall,
the impacts on EFH from the Proposed Action are expected to be positive relative to the No
Action alternative.

Table 204 – Expected Impacts of the Proposed Action Relative to the No Action Alternative
Proposed Measure
Expected Relative
Rationale
Habitat Impacts
Revised status
0
Administrative; not expected to have
determination criteria
impact on EFH
Revised ABC control
0
Fishing mortality targets will not be
rules
significantly different over the long
term; no impacts expected
Revised mortality
0
Administrative; not expected to have
targets
impact on EFH; measures to achieve
targets may have impacts described
below
Annual catch limits
0
Administrative; not expected to have
impact on EFH
Addition of Atlantic
0
Administrative; not expected to have
Wolffish to the
impact on EFH
management unit
Designation of Atlantic
0
Not expected to have impacts due to
wolffish EFH
overlap with existing EFH
Sector administration
0
These provisions are administrative
provisions
in nature. However, sectors formed
under these provisions could have
impacts. These possible impacts
would be discussed in the NEPA
document supporting the individual
sector.
Reporting requirements
0
Administrative; not expected to have
impact on EFH

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

615

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Essential Fish Habitat Impacts of the Alternatives

Proposed Measure
Allocation of GOM cod
and haddock to the
commercial and
recreational
components

Expected Relative
Habitat Impacts
+

Changes to the DAS
Transfer and Leasing
Programs

Special Management
Programs
Incidental Catch TACs

+/0

CAI Hook Gear
Haddock SAP Revisions

Eastern US/CA
Haddock SAP

CAII Yellowtail Flounder
SAP

Periodic Adjustment
Process

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

May result in shifts in effort from the
commercial component to the
recreational component; the
recreational component generally has
less effect on EFH. But since
allocation is based on recent landings
history, any benefits are expected to
be minor when compared to No
Action.
Combined changes are expected to
have minimal effect. Removing
transfer tax expected to be neutral to
positive as it may reduce effort in
other fisheries. Removing DAS
leasing cap may increase effort and
have negative impacts on EFH.
Allowing CPH permits to participate
may be negative as some additional
effort may enter fishery.

Administrative; not expected to have
impact on EFH.
While season and area increase,
effort will not increase beyond
baseline and gear used has minimal
impact on EFH. Could be positive
benefits if vessels switch from gear
with more EFH impacts to participate
in the SAP.
While SAP is extended,
administration does not change and
no effects expected that are different
than when SAP was authorized.
Changes will result in increased effort
in the SAP area, and may increase
effort through use of additional DAS.
Changes reduce species that can be
targeted, but facilitated targeting
haddock. Uncertain whether this will
increase effort, but existing effort
caps remain in place so potential
effort is unchanged from the No
Action alternative.
Administrative; not expected to have
impact on EFH.

0/-

Category B DAS
Program Changes

Rationale

616

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Essential Fish Habitat Impacts of the Alternatives

Proposed Measure
Simultaneous
possession of a limited
access scallop and
multispecies permit

Expected Relative
Habitat Impacts
0/-

Catch history

Commercial fishery
effort control measures:
24 hour clock, restricted
gear areas

SNE/MA Small Mesh
Fisheries Gear
Requirement

GOM Haddock Sink
Gillnet Pilot Program

Recreational
Management Measures

Atlantic halibut minimum
size
Prohibition on retention
of Atlantic wolffish

Implementation of
Additional Sectors

Accountability Measures

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

+/0

617

Rationale
If the former groundfish vessel
participates in other fisheries after the
multispecies permit is transferred,
and this results in effort increases in
other fisheries that use mobile bottom
tending gears (e.g. summer flounder),
then there may be a consequent
negative effect on habitats
designated EFH that overlap with
those fisheries. The potential for, and
likely magnitude of, this outcome is
unknown at this time.
Administrative; not expected to have
impact on EFH.
Gears will likely have a reduced
impact on the seabed since gears are
required to minimize interactions with
species that tend to remain close to
the seabed floor. Additionally, the
dramatic decrease in overall DAS
allocations will translate to a
reduction in fishing effort and will
have benefits to habitats designated
as EFH throughout the range of the
fishery.
The No Action alternative is adopted
by the Proposed Action; since there
are no new or different requirements,
impacts will not change.
No impacts on EFH expected
because no effort increases
anticipated.
Recreational fishery uses hook and
line gear that has no adverse effects
on EFH. No impacts expected.
No directed fishery for this stock that
uses mobile bottom tending gear.
No directed fishery for this stock;
prohibition will not affect effort levels
and is not expected to have impacts
on EFH.
Sector implementation is
administrative in nature. Sector
operations plans must describe
fishing practices and impacts on
EFH. Addition of sectors could lead to
reductions in effort as sectors fish
more efficiently which would be
expected to benefit EFH.
Mixed/unknown – for commercial
vessels, depends on implementation;
for recreational vessels, no impact

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Essential Fish Habitat Impacts of the Alternatives

7.4.2 Essential Fish Habitat Impacts of Alternatives to the Proposed Action
7.4.2.1

No Action Alternative

This alternative would not change any existing management measures. The management
measures for the Northeast Multispecies Fishery would not be revised and the most recent
measures adopted by Amendment 13, FW 40A, FW 40B, FW 41 and FW 42 would remain in
effect as implemented. Current implementing regulations can be found at 50 CFR 648 Subpart F.
Habitat Impacts:
The impacts of continuing the measures adopted under Amendment 13, FW 40A, FW 40B, FW
41 and FW 42 have been summarized in the EIS’s prepared with those documents. The most
recent action, FW 42, concluded that:
“It is clear that most of the proposed measures in this action have neutral or positive impacts on
habitat largely by reducing effort overall in the fishery. Specific to the Proposed Action, effort
controls, differential DAS counting, the differential DAS counting area, effort controls and
incidental catch TACs in the Category B (regular) DAS program, implementation of a George’s
Bank cod fixed gear sector and institutional use of a VMS system will likely have positive effects
on EFH.

Commercial Fishery Measures Effort Controls: Positive habitat impacts by reducing DAS by
8.3% (Category A DAS) with limited opportunity to use the increased Category B DAS.
Differential DAS Counting: Positive habitat impacts, especially in areas that are sensitive to
the impacts of trawling or dredging as described in Amendment 13, by reducing the amount
of time the gear will be in contact with the bottom in GOM and SNE.
Differential DAS counting area: Positive habitat impacts, especially in areas that are sensitive
to the impacts of trawling or dredging as described in Amendment 13, by reducing the
amount of time the gear will be in contact with the bottom in GOM and SNE.
Category B (regular) DAS Program Effort Controls: Reduction of allocated DAS from 4,000
to 3,500 (a 12.5% reduction) with further evidence that it will be difficult to use the 3,500
DAS. Positive habitat impacts, especially in areas that are sensitive to the impacts of trawling
or dredging as described in Amendment 13, by reducing the amount of time the gear will be
in contact with the bottom in GOM and SNE.
Category B (regular) DAS Program Incidental Catch: Based on the size of the incidental
catch TACs and the maximum catch allowed, the incidental catch TACs may constrain the
number of DAS that can be used in this program.
GB Cod Fixed Gear Sector: No adverse impacts expected from jigs, non-automated demersal
longline, hand gear, or sink gillnets as compared to bottom-tending mobile gear. May be
positive to habitat if some traditionally bottom-tending gear vessels transition into the sector
and change gears used to less impacting ones required by the Sector.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

618

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Essential Fish Habitat Impacts of the Alternatives

Vessel Monitoring System: Improved understanding of spatial distribution of fishing will
improve the ability to assess and minimize habitat impacts over the long-term.
Conversely, only the combined trips to the Eastern US/Canada Resource Sharing Area may have
negative impacts on EFH by making fishing in the area more attractive. However, impacts are
hard to assess based on limited understanding of biological impacts. All other measures
proposed will likely have neutral habitat impacts or the impacts on EFH cannot be assessed.

Combined Trips to Eastern US/Canada Area: May result in increased effort by making
fishing in the area more attractive. Impacts are hard to assess based on limited understanding
of biological impacts.
Overall, the proposed measure is expected to have positive impacts on EFH.”
The impacts resulting from changes proposed in this document will be compared to the No
Action Alternative to provide a relative assessment of impacts to EFH.

7.4.2.2 Updates to Status Determination Criteria and Formal Rebuilding
Programs

7.4.2.2.1 Revised Status Determination Criteria
This action proposes new status determination criteria. The only alternative considered was the
No Action alternative, which would have maintained the criteria adopted in Amendment 13.
Habitat Impacts:
Status Determination Criteria are administrative in nature and are not expected to have any direct
impact on habitats designated EFH.

7.4.2.2.2 ABC Control Rules
The No Action alternative would not adopt revised ABC control rules. In the long-term, fishing
mortality rates would be similar to the Proposed Action and this alternative would not be
expected to have any direct impacts on habitats designated EFH.

7.4.2.2.3 Revised Mortality Targets for Formal Rebuilding Programs
This action revises mortality targets as needed based on stock status and rebuilding requirements.
The only alternative considered was the No Action alternative, which would have maintained the
mortality targets adopted by Amendment 13 and FW 42.
Habitat Impacts:
Mortality targets are administrative in nature and are not expected to have any direct impact on
habitats designated EFH.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

619

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Essential Fish Habitat Impacts of the Alternatives

7.4.2.3

Fishery Program Administration

7.4.2.3.1 Annual Catch Limits
This action proposes to implement Annual Catch Limits (ACLs) as required by the M-S Act. The
only alternative considered was the No Action alternative, which would not implement ACLs.
Habitat Impacts:
Annual Catch Limits are administrative in nature and are not expected to have any direct impact
on habitats designated EFH.

7.4.2.3.2 Addition of Atlantic Wolffish to the Management Unit
This action adds Atlantic wolffish (Anarhichas lupus) to the management unit for the Northeast
Multispecies Fishery Management Plan. Adding another species to the multispecies management
unit is administrative in nature and is not expected to have any direct impact on habitats
designated EFH.
The alternatives to the Proposed Action for defining EFH include Option 3 and the No Action
alternative. The four options included in Alternative 3 would designate progressively larger areas
in the Gulf of Maine and on Georges Bank. Any of these alternatives would describe EFH for all
four life stages of wolffish as being between 40 and 240 meters and in a range of substrate types.
The No Action alternative would not designate EFH for Atlantic wolfish, and it but could only be
selected if the Council decided not to include this species in the Multispecies FMU.
Because all of the wolfish EFH designation alternatives overlap entirely with existing EFH
designations for other federally-managed species, the addition of wolfish would not affect the
number or effectiveness of EFH consultations that are conducted for fishing or non-fishing
activities. Fishing impacts on EFH are already being minimized by management actions
implemented under Amendment 13 to the Multispecies FMP; adding Atlantic wolffish to the
multispecies FMU, and designating EFH for this species, simply extends habitat protection to
include wolffish. In conclusion, therefore, there would be no habitat impact of any of the EFH
designation alternatives to the Proposed Action.

7.4.2.3.3 Sector administration provisions
The management measures proposed in this section relate to the process for establishing sector
allocations in the multispecies fishery. This section is intended to update Section 3.4.16.1 of the
final Amendment 13 SEIS (Sector Allocation). All of the sector policy changes proposed in this
section will be implemented at the beginning of fishing year 2010 (May 1, 2010).
While in some cases the sector administration provisions included various sub-options, the
primary alternative to revising these provisions was to not make any changes (the No Action
alternative). This alternative would have maintained the sector administration provisions adopted
in Amendment 13.
Habitat Impacts:
Sector administration provisions are administrative in nature and are not expected to have any
direct impact on habitats designated EFH. Any changes in fishery regulations or fishing practices
that may result on the basis of sector-based management will be addressed in the regulations that
implement a particular sector, and in the EIS or EA corresponding to the creation or continuation
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

620

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Essential Fish Habitat Impacts of the Alternatives

of that sector. The impacts of the No Action option are not expected to differ from the Proposed
Action.

7.4.2.3.4 Reporting Requirements
The No Action alternative would not adopt an area specific reporting requirement, nor a method
to account for discards by non sector vessels.
Habitat Impacts:
Reporting requirements are administrative in nature and are not expected to have any direct
impact on habitats designated EFH. The impacts of the No Action option are not expected to
differ from the Proposed Action.

7.4.2.3.5 Allocation of Groundfish to the Commercial and Recreational
Groundfish Fisheries
Several alternatives to the Proposed Action were considered. First, the No Action alternative
would not define an allocation for any stock. Second, allocations were considered, but not
adopted, for pollock, GB cod, SNE/MA/winter flounder, and GOM winter flounder. Third,
different years were considered as the basis for the allocation.
Habitat Impacts:
An allocation could alter the distribution of fishing effort, and could potentially shift effort from
commercial fisheries that are more likely to have an adverse effect on habitats (e.g. commercial
trawling) to recreational fisheries with less overall impact on habitats (e.g. recreational
hook/line). However, any such shift in fishing effort distribution will likely be very small, as
discussed in section 7.4.1.2.5. Options for allocating groundfish to the commercial and
recreational groundfish fisheries are expected to have minimal, if any, notable effects on habitats
designated EFH.

7.4.2.3.6 Changes to the DAS Transfer and DAS Leasing Programs
In addition to the No Action alternative that would not have made any changes to the DAS
leasing or transfer programs, the Council considered changing the conservation tax on DAS
transfers, currently set at 20 percent. An additional option proposed eliminating the tax on
transfers for a defined period. An option was considered that would have adopted a tax on DAS
leasing that matched the transfer program tax. Finally, the Council considered keeping the cap on
the number of DAS that can be leased by a permit.
Habitat Impacts:
The alternatives that were not adopted have one characteristic in common: they all would have
made the DAS transfer and leasing programs more restrictive than the measures adopted by the
Proposed Action. As a result, fewer DAS would be exchanged through either the leasing or
transfer programs, and there would probably have been marginally fewer DAS used as a result
when compared to the Proposed Action. These differences are likely dwarfed by other changes in
the amendment, such as the effort reductions and implementation of additional sectors.
Ultimately, changes to the DAS transfer and leasing program taxes not expected to have more
than a minimal effect on habitats designated EFH.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

621

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Essential Fish Habitat Impacts of the Alternatives

7.4.2.3.7 Special Management Programs

7.4.2.3.7.1

Incidental Catch TACs

Because of changes in stock status, as well as the possible addition of additional SAP provisions,
specific stocks subject to incidental catch TACs and the allocations to SAPs are proposed for
revision. The only alternative to the Proposed Action considered was the No Action alternative.
Habitat Impacts:
Incidental catch TACs are administrative in nature and are not expected to have any direct impact
on habitats designated EFH. No differences are expected between the Proposed Action and the
No Action alternatives.

7.4.2.3.7.2

Closed Area I Hook Gear Haddock SAP Revisions

The No Action alternative would not have expanded the area and season for this SAP.
Habitat Impacts:
Because participants in this SAP used a gear type not determined to have an adverse effect on
EFH, the effects of the Proposed Action are not expected to differ appreciably from the No
Action alternative. With a smaller area and season, it is possible that the No Action alternative
would have resulted in fewer SAP participants, but this is speculative because it is not certain
expanding the SAP will result in vessels changing from gear with more adverse effects to a
participate in the SAP.

7.4.2.3.7.3

Eastern U.S./Canada Haddock SAP

This SAP provides an opportunity to target GB haddock in the Eastern U.S./Canada area,
including a small portion of CAII. The No Action alternative would result in the SAP ending in
December, 2009 and would eliminate opportunities to participate in this SAP.
Habitat Impacts:
The No Action option would prevent the SAP from operating, resulting in a marginal decrease in
fishing effort inside the SAP area.

7.4.2.3.7.4

Closed Area II Yellowtail Flounder SAP

The No Action alternative would not modify the existing SAP, and would not provide an
opportunity to target GB haddock in the SAP area even when the SAP is not opened to allow
targeting of GB yellowtail flounder.
Habitat Impacts:
The impact of the No Action alternative on habitats designated EFH is potentially positive based
on the fact that there would be fewer opportunities for non-sector vessels to fish in the SAP area,
some vessels (i.e., non-sector vessels) would be using Category B DAS that they would otherwise
not have used, resulting in some net decrease in trawl fishing effort when compared to the
Proposed Action. The magnitude of the impact, however, cannot be determined because it is
uncertain how many vessels would or could participate in this program.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

622

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Essential Fish Habitat Impacts of the Alternatives

7.4.2.3.7.5

SNE/MA Winter Flounder SAP

The No Action alternative to the Proposed Action would allow this SAP to continue.
Habitat Impacts:
Given that this SAP did not allow for large landings of winter flounder, it is unlikely it resulted
in an increase in the number of trips. The No Action alternative would not be expected to have
adverse effects on EFH when compared to the Proposed Action.

7.4.2.3.7.6

Category B DAS Program

The No Action alternative would not adopt measures to change the program to focus on GB
haddock, GOM haddock and redfish.
Habitat Impacts:
It is unclear if this option would have resulted in any overall change in the amount of effort used
under a B DAS program. On one hand, the Proposed Action may encourage participation in the
program to target haddock; some fishermen argue the smaller mesh size will make their vessels
more efficient at catching haddock. But it is also possible the No Action alternative, by allowing
vessels to continue to target pollock, might encourage the use of more Category B DAS in the
program, increasing fishing effort and the adverse effects of trawling on EFH.

7.4.2.3.8 Periodic Adjustment Process
The periodic adjustment process is administrative in nature and is not expected to have any direct
impact on habitats designated EFH. The No Action alternative effects would not differ from the
Proposed Action.

7.4.2.3.9 Simultaneous Possession of a Limited Access Multispecies and
Scallop Permit
At present, only those limited access scallop permit holders that qualified for a combination
vessel limited access multispecies permit are permitted to hold a limited access scallop permit and
a limited access multispecies permit at the same time. Under the No Action option, this restriction
will continue.
Habitat Impacts:
Analysis in section 7.4.1.2.9 of this document highlights the fact that the Proposed Action may
induce some groundfish permits to consolidate to vessels that currently fish primarily (or
exclusively) for Atlantic sea scallops. This consolidation would not take place under the No
Action alternative. As long as fishing mortality objectives are met for both fisheries, it is not
likely to result in any overall change in fishing effects on habitats designated EFH. The potential
for, and likely magnitude of, this outcome is unknown at this time.

7.4.2.3.10

Catch History

The No Action alternative would allow catch history to accrue to the vessel that lands the catch.
This is an administrative measure and is not expected to have direct impacts on essential fish
habitat.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

623

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Essential Fish Habitat Impacts of the Alternatives

7.4.2.4

Measures to Meet Mortality Objectives

7.4.2.4.1 Commercial Fishery Measures

7.4.2.4.1.1

Differential DAS and Trip Limits (Option 2A)

7.4.2.4.1.2

DAS Reduction and restricted gear areas

This option reduces Category A DAS by 40 percent from FW 42 allocations. This results in a
Category A/Category B DAS split of 33/67. Most other current measures remain, including
seasonal and rolling closures and gear requirements.
Habitat Impacts:
This measure decreases overall DAS allocations by less than the 24 hour clock provisions (above)
and instead relies on increased trip limits to achieve mortality targets. Such an approach will
result in greater adverse effects from fishing on habitats designated EFH relative to the larger
DAS reduction and less restrictive trip limits, as this measure will likely translate into increased
bottom contact time by mobile bottom tending fishing gears. However, relative to the baseline
period, this measure still results in a substantial decrease in fishing effort and will have a positive
effect on habitat designated EFH.

7.4.2.4.1.3

SNE/MA Small Mesh Fisheries Gear Requirement

In a portion of the stock area for SNE/MA winter flounder, any vessel fishing for any species
with gear using a cod-end, or cod-end liner, of less than five inches, and not fishing on a

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

624

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Essential Fish Habitat Impacts of the Alternatives

groundfish DAS, would be required to use 12-inch drop chains on the footrope, or large mesh
panels in the front of the net.
Habitat Impacts:
The purpose of this requirement is to raise the footrope off the bottom and reduce catches of
winter flounder. As such, there would have been a reduced impact from all such fisheries in this
area. The magnitude of the reduced impact, and how it translates into a reduced effect of fishing
on habitats designated EFH is not quantifiable at this time. However, in aggregate, this measure
would likely have resulted in some benefit to habitats designated EFH that overlap with the
portion of the SNE/MA winter flounder stock area subject to this requirement.

7.4.2.4.1.4

GOM Haddock Sink Gillnet Pilot Program

The No Action alternative would not modify sink gillnet requirements in order to create an
opportunity to target haddock in the GOM. .
Habitat Impacts:
This measure is not expected to have any change in impact on habitats designated EFH relative to
the baseline period. No differences are expected between the Proposed Action and the No Action
alternatives.

7.4.2.4.2 Recreational Management Measures
These measures affect fishing for groundfish using hook and line gear, which has been shown to
have no adverse effect on habitats designated as EFH. These measures are not expected to have
any impact on such habitats relative to the baseline period. No differences are expected between
the Proposed Action and the No Action alternatives.

7.4.2.4.3 Atlantic Halibut Minimum Size
This measure increases the minimum size of Atlantic halibut to 41 inches.
Habitat Impacts:
Because there is no directed fishery for Atlantic halibut using mobile bottom tending gears, the
minimum size for Atlantic halibut is not expected to have any impact on habitats designated EFH.
No differences are expected between the Proposed Action and the No Action alternative.

7.4.2.4.4 Prohibition on Retention of Atlantic Wolffish
The No Action alternative would allow commercial and recreational vessels to retain Atlantic
wolffish.
Habitat Impacts:
Because there is no directed fishery for Atlantic wolffish at this time, the No Action alternative
and the Proposed Action are not expected to have any impact on habitats designated EFH.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

625

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Economic Impacts

7.4.2.4.5 Implementation of Additional Sectors/Modifications to Existing
Sectors
Under the No Action alternative, additional sectors would not be implemented and no changes
would be made to the existing sectors. This is not expected to have any direct effects on EFH.

7.5

Economic Impacts

This section discusses the economic impacts of the measures under consideration.

7.5.1 Economic Impacts of the Proposed Action
7.5.1.1 Updates to Status Determination Criteria and Formal Rebuilding
Programs

7.5.1.1.1 Revised Status Determination Criteria
The Proposed Action (Option 2) changes the status determination criteria. Since these criteria
place limits on the amount of fishing effort they may have economic impacts. One way to
evaluate those impacts is to compare the MSY values between the No Action alternative and the
proposed revisions. The revised MSY totals are 75 percent of the No Action MSY total.
Revenues under the revised criteria would be expected to be less once stocks are rebuilt. The No
Action MSY values, however, do not represent use of the best available science and may not be
sustainable.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

626

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Economic Impacts
Table 205 – Comparisons of No Action and Revised Status Determination Criteria (MSY)
Species
Stock
Model
No Action
Proposed
35,200
Cod
GB
VPA
31,159
Cod
GOM
VPA
16,600
10,014
Haddock
GB
VPA
52,900
33,604
Haddock
GOM
VPA
5,100
1,360
Yellowtail Flounder
GB
VPA
12,900
9,400
Yellowtail Flounder
SNE/MA
VPA
14,200
6,100
Yellowtail Flounder
CC/GOM
VPA
2,300
1,720
American Plaice
GB/GOM
VPA
4,900
4,011
Witch Flounder
VPA
4,375
2,352
Winter Flounder
GB
VPA
3,000
3,500
Winter Flounder
GOM
VPA
1,500
917
Winter Flounder
SNE/MA
VPA
10,600
9,742
Redfish
ASAP
8,200
10,139
White Hake
GB/GOM
SCAA
4,200
5,800
Pollock
GB/GOM
AIM
17,600
11,320
Windowpane
1,000
Flounder
GOM/GB
AIM
700
Windowpane
900
Flounder
SNE/MA
AIM
500
Ocean Pout
Index Method
1,500
3,754
Atlantic Halibut
Replacement Yield
300
3,500
278 – 311
Atlantic Wolffish
SCALE
mt
Total
197,275
149,742

7.5.1.1.2 ABC Control Rules
The Proposed ABC control rules establish the fishing mortality rate used as the basis for setting
ABCs. As such, they directly relate to the catch that can be harvested by the fishery, and thus
have an impact on the revenues and economic benefits produced by the commercial and
recreational components of the fishery. The ABC control rules do not differ significantly from the
target fishing mortality rates adopted by Amendment 13. They do, however, limit the ability of
the Council to set catches based on a fishing mortality between FMSY and 75FMSY when a stock is
in good condition. Only if this status is accompanied by additional information on uncertainty
will it be possible to base catches on a fishing mortality above 75FMSY . This may reduce yields
from the fishery in some cases. Over the long-term, catches from most groundfish stocks are
expected to be approximately 92 percent of the MSY. The increased stability of these yields that
result from larger stock sizes may prove of more economic benefit than any short-term increase in
catches.

7.5.1.1.3 Revised Mortality Targets for Formal Rebuilding Programs
The Proposed Action (Option 2) adopts revised mortality targets. While for some stocks this will
result in reduced yield in the short-term, over the long-term the new targets are consistent with
formal rebuilding programs and should lead to higher yields than the No Action alternative.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

627

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Economic Impacts

7.5.1.2

Fishery Program Administration

7.5.1.2.1 Annual Catch Limits
The Proposed Action (Option 2) adopts a process for implementing ACLs. The proposed process
would set an overfishing level (OFL) and acceptable biological catch (ABC) and an annual catch
limit (ACL). The Proposed Action has two facets that will have somewhat different economic
consequences. These parts are the setting of the limits themselves and the setting of ACL subcomponents.
The administrative process of setting an OFL, ABC, and ACL alone will introduce a substantial
increase in the transaction costs of managing the groundfish resource. These costs include an
involved administrative process and an increase in cost of the monitoring multiple subcomponents of ACL. In addition to these costs proposed guidance suggests that setting the ACL
in particular take into account both scientific and management uncertainties. Taking these
uncertainties into account suggest a process whereby deductions from what may be the ABC to
arrive at a final ACL. These deductions represent an opportunity cost in the form of potential
foregone fishery yield where the magnitude of the opportunity cost would be greater as
uncertainty over stock assessments and the effectiveness of the management program increases.
Note that this opportunity cost may also be viewed as a measure of the benefits of research to
reduce biological uncertainty as well as management opportunities such as improved monitoring.
Conceptually, as these uncertainties are reduced the ACL would be set closer and closer to the
ABC.
The proposed setting of ACL sub-components would include an explicit allocation to components
for which accountability measures would be specified and other components for which
accountability measures would not be. The latter includes an allocation to a number of fishing
activities for which groundfish is a small bycatch. These fisheries are so diverse and levels of
bycatch so small that the cost of monitoring a separate ACL for each of the 20 groundfish stocks
in each fishery would likely be prohibitively large. Setting accountability measures for each of
these fisheries would also administratively costly and problematic since vessels engaged in these
fisheries may not possess a groundfish permit and may not be regulated through the groundfish
plan. However, the absence of an accountability measure for these groundfish bycatch fisheries
means that an overage in the total ACL from this sub-component may need to be made up by the
component of the groundfish fishery that is subject at accountability measures. Although the
likelihood of such an event occurring may be small, in effect, the groundfish fishery would be put
in the position of being the residual claimant to the groundfish resource.

7.5.1.2.2 Addition of Atlantic Wolffish to the Management Unit
Option 1 (No Action) would not add Atlantic wolffish to the management unit. This is primarily
an administrative decision and is not expected to have economic impacts.
The proposed addition of Atlantic wolffish (Option 2) to the management unit is primarily an
administrative measure that facilitates management of this species through the FMP. Adding this
species will incrementally increase the costs of administration and management when compared
to No Action. It will increase the need for periodic assessments of this stock as well as efforts to
meet other requirements of the M-S Act (specifying EFH, for example). This measure by itself is
not expected to increase costs to the industry, but specific measures adopted to protect this
resource might.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

628

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Economic Impacts

The wolffish EFH designation alternatives being considered in Amendment 16 would have no
economic impacts on fishing or non-fishing activities in the Northeast region. Fishing activity
would only be affected by management regulations designed to minimize the adverse EFH
impacts of fishing (e.g., closed areas). These regulations are already in place. Changes in these
regulations are being considered in Phase II of the NEFMC EFH Omnibus Amendment 2. They
would be based on the vulnerability of habitats utilized by the entire suite of 27 species managed
by the NEFMC which have EFH areas that, taken as a group, overlap with all of the candidate
wolfish EFH designation alternatives. The addition of wolffish EFH would not affect the EFH
protection provisions of the MSA: they would still apply to fishing and non-fishing activities that
are conducted throughout the geographic extent of the existing EFH designations.

7.5.1.2.3 Sector Administration Provisions

7.5.1.2.3.1

Sector Formation, Operations Plans, and Annual Reports

The Proposed Action requirements to form a sector impose costs on the sector members. These
include one-time costs such as the costs to organize, acquire office equipment and space, prepare
and submit a proposal, prepare the initial supporting NEPA document, and prepare and submit
annual reports. There are continuing costs to consider such as the day-to-day administration of the
sector, monitoring requirements, and preparation of periodic updates to the operations plan and
supporting NEPA document.
There is little information available that estimates the administrative costs for forming and
operating a sector. The tax returns for the two existing sectors were examined for insights into the
range of costs.
• The Fixed Gear Sector’s first full year of operation was FY 2007 (May 1, 2007 – April 30,
2008). According to the IRS Form 990 filed for this sector (available at www.guidestar.org ),
for the fiscal year April 17, 2007 through December 31, 2007 the organization collected
$100,849 in member dues and assessments. Total expenses for this period were $64,047. The
largest single expense was $31,866 for legal fees, followed by $20,159 for contract labor. The
contract labor expense may include sector monitoring costs. This report may not reflect all
costs of forming the sector, as the sector’s organizers began work in the sector prior to 2007.
• The GB Cod Hook Sector is an activity of the Cape Cod Commercial Hook Fishermen’s
Association (CCCHFA). Identifying specific sector costs is difficult because of the numerous
other activities of this organization. For the 2006 fiscal year, the CCCHFA IRS Form 990
(www.guidestar.org) identifies the organization’s total revenues as $1.2 million, with
membership dues contributing $125,132. The organization’s legal fees were $100,054, while
an additional $100,519 was spent for contract services from Archipelago Marine Research, a
provider of fishery data collection programs. It is not known what portion, if any, of these
expenses were directly related to sector operations as the CCCHFA explored electronic
logbooks as well as other fisheries related experiments. The report also identifies $88,000 in
revenue from sector development activities.
The Fixed Gear Sector summary likely more representative of sector formation and operating
costs as that is the sole program for the organization. Anecdotal reports suggest that preparation
of an annual EA can cost as much as $100,000 if contracted through a consulting firm.
Presumably these costs will decline over time as follow-on EA may only require minor
adjustments and updating. Some of these initial costs may be offset by support from other
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

629

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Economic Impacts

organizations For example, the Gulf of Maine Research Institute received several grants to assist
the organization of sectors. They have provided resources to sector organizers to assist the
preparation of operations plans and EAs. This support included hiring personnel to prepare these
EAs and the contracting of services to recommend catch reporting and monitoring systems. In
2009, NMFS also provided support to sector organizers; NMFS helped contract for preparation of
sector EAs and reportedly will help fund other sector administrative costs. It is not clear that this
level of support will continue to be available to new sectors.
In summary, sector formation and operating costs are likely to be at least $60,000 - $150,000 per
sector. This does not include reporting expenses, which are discussed in section 7.5.1.2.3.4. Some
of these costs may be offset by support from other organizations, but the duration and level of that
external support is uncertain. It is possible that collaborative approaches between sectors will
provide efficiencies that reduce the total costs per sector. For example, a group of sectors may be
able to hire one contractor to prepare a set of similar operations plans or NEPA documents, or
may share office space and other administrative expenses. The true costs of forming and
operating sectors will be difficult to estimate until there is more experience with sectors.
The Proposed Action allows the permit to join a sector even if in CPH. This should result in
reduced costs for permit holders. It may also increase the number of permits that choose to join
sectors, bringing additional PSCs into the sectors and increasing allocations of ACE.

7.5.1.2.3.2

Allocation of Resources

The measures proposed that are grouped under this heading (see section 5.2.3.3) fall into four
broad categories: general guidance for how resources are allocated and which permits receive a
potential sector contribution, how resources are treated in after a sector overage if a sector
disbands or vessel leaves a sector, treatment of U.S./Canada area resources, and options for
calculating the PSC of each permit. Because of the implications of the PSC calculation for
individual permit holders, most of the following discussion highlights the impacts of the different
options.

7.5.1.2.3.2.1

General

The revisions to the general guidance make it clear that sectors can only be allocated resources in
the form of hard TACs (not DAS) and removes the cap on TAC/ACE that can be allocated to a
sector. Sectors must also request a hard TAC/ACE for all stocks that are caught (with four
exceptions). Removing the cap on TAC/ACE will allow sectors of any size to form. It is possible
that one sector could acquire sufficient ACE of a stock to constrain the activity of other sectors.
This section also adopts the concept that NMFS will withhold up to 20 percent of each sector’s
ACE at the beginning of the fishing year for a period of 61 days to allow time to process end of
year transfers and resolve catch data. This could reduce revenues if prices are higher during this
period, and may increase costs if sectors are unable to take advantage of higher catch rates during
these months as a result.

7.5.1.2.3.2.2

Guidance on Sector Overages

The Proposed Action (Option 1) provides guidance for the treatment of sector overages and
makes it clear that exiting or disbanding a sector is not an opportunity to avoid accountability for

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

630

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Economic Impacts

sector overages. Regardless which sub-option is selected, the overall impact of this measure is to
increase the effectiveness of the sector concept by clearly defining responsibility for overages.

7.5.1.2.3.2.3

U.S./Canada Area

In the U.S./Canada area, fishing for EGB cod and haddock and GB yellowtail flounder is limited
by a hard TAC for all vessels. AMs are triggered when the TAC of these stocks is caught,
including closure of the eastern U.S./Canada area. With the expectation that additional sectors
may be implemented in FY 2010, a concern was raised that fishing by common pool or sector
vessels could affect the other component of the fishery.
The Proposed Action (Option 2) creates a specific allocation of U.S/Canada stocks for sectors.
This reduces the incentive to race to catch the TACs in this area. Common pool vessels may still
compete with each other but will not compete against sectors. Sectors will have more of an ability
to plan their activities to maximize their returns without fear that common-pool fishing will lock
them out of the area.

7.5.1.2.3.2.4

Sector Baseline Calculations

This section analyzes the impacts of the different options for establishing PSC for each permit.

7.5.1.2.3.2.5

Economic Impacts of Sector Share Allocations

The following sections compare the potential sector contributions (PSCs) for four different
options considered by the Council. These values were calculated by the Groundfish PDT, and the
results may differ from the final values determined by NMFS for each permit. The final NMFS
values will take into account corrections to the data, challenges to the PSC determinations for
individual permits, and possible differences in the tracking of the ownership of permits over time.
The PDT analyses are believed sufficient to illustrate the differences between the options, but
should not be viewed as a definitive determination of the allocation results from the different
options. This summary also reflects impacts over a group of vessels, and the impacts for any
individual vessel within that group may differ from those shown here.
Only one of the options analyzed in this section is included in the Proposed Action. Because it is
easier to compare the options by keeping the tables in one location, the results for all options
analyzed are included in this section of the document. If the tables for the options not selected
were relocated to section 7.5.2.2.3.2.6, the reader would be forced to repeatedly page through the
document to compare options.
The five options analyzed were:
• No Action Alternative (Status Quo/Amendment 13): Allocation of resources will be
based on the accumulated catch histories over the previous five years for which data are
available for each member of the self-selected sector, as described in Amendment 13. For
example, for sectors beginning operations in FY 2009, the baseline period would be FY 2002
– FY 2006. Each permit’s landings for the time period are divided by the total landings of the
stock to determine each permit’s share.
•

Proposed Action (Option 1) - Landings History Only FY 1996 – FY 2006

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

631

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Economic Impacts

• Option 2 - 50% Landings History and 50% Vessel Baseline Capacity for Landed Stocks
FY 1996 – FY 2006: Under this alternative, landings history for each permit/stock will be
calculated in the same manner described above for Alternative 1. Vessel baseline capacity
will be calculated using the following formula:
(10L + HP) x (allocated “A” DAS) = baseline capacity
The portion allocated based on capacity applies only to stocks landed by the permit.
• Option 3 - 50% Landings History and 50% Vessel Baseline Capacity for All Stocks FY
1996 – FY 2006: Under this alternative, landings history for each permit/stock will be
calculated in the same manner described above for Alternative 1. Vessel baseline capacity
will be calculated using the following formula:
(10L + HP) x (allocated “A” DAS) = baseline capacity
The portion allocated based on capacity applies to all stocks for which ACE will be allocated.
• Option 4 - 50% Landings History and 50% A DAS for All Stocks FY 1996 – FY 2006:
Under this alternative, landings history for each permit/stock will be calculated in the same
manner described above for Alternative 1. Vessel baseline capacity will be represented by
allocated “A” DAS for all stocks for which ACE will be allocated.
The landings history share and the A DAS share for each permit will be averaged to obtain a
value for each stock.
In addition, PSC Option 5 is analyzed in section 7.5.1.2.3.2.11.
For each permit, the PSC was calculated for each of the options for each of fifteen regulated
groundfish stock. The results were then aggregated by homeport state and by three vessel size
classes (large > 70 feet, medium 50-70 feet, and small under 50 feet). The results were also
aggregated by broad stock areas fished by the permits. The differences between the alternatives
are also compared and briefly discussed.
As suggested by the Groundfish PDT, in order to give a more concrete illustration of the
differences between the alternatives, the shares were then applied to an estimated FY 2010 catch
level to determine the weight of fish in each category of vessel size and homeport state. The catch
levels are based on the median catch at the target fishing mortality and are adjusted to account for
sub-components of an ACL, recreational harvest, and Canadian harvest. As one final illustration,
the resulting amounts were multiplied by an average price per pound of live weight based on the
available CY 2007 dealer data (not all data is entered in the database). These average prices are
species, and not stock, specific, and may not reflect differences in value between stocks or
seasonal variations in price. Live weight was used to calculate an average price since TTACs are
based on lived weight. The weights and prices used are shown in Table 206. For GOM winter
flounder, pollock, and white hake, the starting values for the catch area based on FY 2009
TTACs.
Table 206 – TACs and species values used to evaluate PSC options
TAC
Price
GOM Cod
6,800
1.59
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

632

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Economic Impacts
GB Cod
GOM Winter
GB Winter
SNEMA
Winter
CCGOM YT
GB YT
SNEMA YT
GOM Haddock
GB Haddock
Witch
Plaice
Pollock
Redfish
White Hake

2,600
340
2,000

1.59
2.07
2.07

0
840
1,700
340
860
35,000
990
3,700
6,200
9,100
2,300

2.07
1.86
1.86
1.86
1.53
1.53
2.4
1.61
0.46
0.57
1.15

7.5.1.2.3.2.6
PSC Shares, ACE Allocations and Potential Value by
Vessel Length Group
PSC shares calculated for eligible permits for the No Action option and Options 1-4 are shown in
Table 207, aggregated by three vessel length classes. The resulting ACE that permits would bring
to a sector, and an estimated value for that ACE, are shown in Table 208 through Table 212.
The No action option and Options 1 use landings history alone to calculate ACE and differ only
in the time period used. In general, large vessels get a larger ACE for most GOM stocks under
Option 1, reflecting the fact that in recent years large vessels have not fished as much in this area
as they did over the entire time period. For medium–sized vessels there is little difference
between these two history-based options. While small vessels gain GB cod ACE under Option 1,
as a group they lose GOM cod and GOM haddock.
Options 2, 3, and 4 all add an additional capacity factor to the calculation of each permit’s
potential sector contribution. In general, adding this additional factor tends to move ACE away
from the vessel size classes that had the majority of a stock under either the No Action option or
Option 1. For example, GOM cod tends to move from the small vessels to large vessels; GB
haddock moves from large vessels to small and medium vessels; SNE/MA yellowtail flounder
moves from medium vessels to both large and small vessels.
In terms of ACE value (ignoring whether a vessel size class is capable of actually harvesting a
particular stock) large vessels would receive the highest value under Option 1 and the value
declines for each subsequent option. The value of ACE for medium vessels gains under each
successive option, peaking at $57.9 million under Option 4. Small vessels do slightly better under
the No Action option than Option 1, but do better under each successive option, peaking at $73.5
million under Option 4. Most of the increase for both small and medium vessels can be attributed
to receiving a larger share of GB haddock under successive options.

7.5.1.2.3.2.7
PSC Shares, ACE Allocations and Potential Value by
Homeport State
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

633

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Economic Impacts

PSC shares aggregated by homeport state are shown in Table 213 through Table 217, with the
resulting ACE allocations shown in Table 218 through Table 222 and values in Table 223
through Table 227.
Vessels that claim Massachusetts as homeport state would receive the largest ACE under the No
Action option, with a very similar allocation under Option 1. The ACE for these vessels declines
under each subsequent option. Vessels with homeports of Maine or New Hampshire would
receive the least ACE under Option 1 increasing to a maximum under Option 4. Again, these
changes are in large part due to changes in the distribution of GB haddock under the different
alternatives. Rhode Island vessels would receive the largest ACE under the No Action option,
followed by Option 3. Vessels with homeports of New Jersey or New York receive the largest
ACE under Option 3 as well. Similar trends are seen for value, shows in Table 223 through Table
227.

7.5.1.2.3.2.8
Fished

PSC ACE Allocations and Potential Value by Area

As seen in the preceding sections, the PSC options have different impacts on different stocks.
This suggests that the areas fished by a permit may be important in defining the impacts of the
alternatives. Using VTRs, permits were classified as to whether they fished in one or more broad
fishing areas (GOM, GB, or SNE/MA). Again, no allowance is made for whether a permit is
capable of catching fish from a particular stock. The resulting PSCs from each option were then
aggregated for the areas fished. The results are summarized in Table 228 through Table 237.
In general, permits that have a history of fishing in all three areas receive more ACE (weight and
value) under the No Action option and Option 1 – those options that rely on landings history
alone. These permits receive the lease ACE under Option 4. Permits that fished only in the GOM
receive their largest ACE under Option 4. The same is true for permits that fished only on GB or
on both GB and in the GOM. Permits that fished only in the SNE/MA area do their best under
either Option 3 or 4 in terms of total ACE and value. Permits that fished in SNE/MA and the
GOM do their best under Option 4, while those that fished in SNE/MA and GB do their best
under Option 3. As with the earlier aggregations by length and homeport state, many of the
differences can be attributed to the different distribution of GB haddock under the different
options.
These broad overviews do not capture the results for individual stocks. As an example, while
permits that fished only in SNE/MA receive the largest total ACE under Option 3 or 4, under
these options they receive smaller ACE for SNE/MA yellowtail flounder and SNE/MA winter
flounder than with Option 1 or 2.

7.5.1.2.3.2.9

ACE Allocations by Sector

In order to provide information on the impacts of the different PSC options on individual sectors,
the PSCs were aggregated by sector membership. Membership was as reported to NMFS by
March 1, 2008 and may not represent membership once sectors are implemented. Since specific
membership for Northeast Seafood Coalition sectors was not identified, all permits that signed up
for these sectors were lumped together in the summary tables. These tables should be viewed with
caution and should not be used as the sole basis for business decisions. Allocations of ACE to
sectors depend on which permits join each sector. If membership differs from that used to
construct these tables, then the allocations could prove to be very different than those shown here.
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

634

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Economic Impacts

In addition, these tables are subject to all the caveats used in the previous analyses – PDT
estimates are not likely to exactly match PSCs calculated by NMFS. To emphasize these caveats,
all that is shown is the ACE, in metric tons and value, estimated for each sector.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

635

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Economic Impacts

Table 207 – Estimated potential sector contribution shares by vessel length group
Stock
Number of Vessels
GOM Cod
GB Cod
GOM Winter
GB Winter
SNEMA Winter
CCGOM YT
GB YT
SNEMA YT
GOM Haddock
GB Haddock
Witch
Plaice
Pollock
Redfish
White Hake

Large
311
9.20%
70.71%
10.30%
94.84%
65.59%
31.36%
90.06%
44.39%
34.54%
81.80%
51.74%
55.11%
41.40%
67.41%
49.00%

No Action
Medium
288
28.26%
11.85%
48.73%
5.14%
27.68%
37.44%
9.94%
48.80%
25.97%
9.55%
31.27%
32.88%
23.97%
20.73%
28.86%

Small
769
62.54%
17.44%
40.97%
0.02%
6.73%
31.20%
0.00%
6.80%
39.49%
8.65%
16.99%
12.01%
34.63%
11.86%
22.14%

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

Proposed Action - Option 1
Large
Medium Small

Large

16.10%
60.63%
11.99%
95.49%
66.61%
32.90%
90.03%
47.94%
47.87%
82.86%
52.05%
50.05%
42.21%
67.53%
48.80%

27.97%
57.38%
25.06%
88.67%
63.27%
42.08%
86.38%
57.95%
44.17%
71.55%
50.59%
49.94%
45.22%
57.09%
48.78%

29.97%
11.24%
47.38%
4.47%
25.03%
37.12%
9.97%
44.46%
25.26%
10.17%
32.65%
34.39%
25.10%
21.94%
29.93%

636

53.93%
28.13%
40.64%
0.04%
8.36%
29.98%
0.00%
7.60%
26.87%
6.97%
15.30%
15.56%
32.69%
10.52%
21.27%

Option 2
Medium

28.63%
17.95%
38.41%
8.38%
23.78%
30.35%
11.66%
33.41%
26.56%
16.30%
29.13%
29.42%
24.55%
23.43%
27.26%

Small

Large

43.40%
24.67%
36.53%
2.95%
12.95%
27.57%
1.96%
8.64%
29.27%
12.15%
20.28%
20.64%
30.23%
19.48%
23.96%

31.68%
53.94%
29.62%
71.37%
56.93%
40.08%
68.64%
47.60%
47.56%
65.06%
49.65%
48.65%
44.73%
57.39%
48.03%

Option 3
Medium

27.38%
18.02%
36.08%
14.63%
24.91%
30.96%
17.38%
34.63%
25.03%
17.48%
28.72%
29.59%
24.94%
23.37%
27.36%

Small

Large

40.94%
28.04%
34.29%
13.99%
18.16%
28.96%
13.98%
17.78%
27.41%
17.46%
21.63%
21.75%
30.32%
19.24%
24.61%

24.81%
47.08%
22.75%
64.51%
50.07%
33.21%
61.78%
40.73%
40.70%
58.19%
42.79%
41.79%
37.87%
50.53%
41.16%

Option 4
Medium

28.25%
18.89%
36.96%
15.50%
25.78%
31.83%
18.25%
35.50%
25.90%
18.35%
29.59%
30.47%
25.82%
24.24%
28.23%

Small

46.94%
34.03%
40.29%
19.99%
24.15%
34.96%
19.97%
23.77%
33.41%
23.46%
27.62%
27.75%
36.32%
25.23%
30.60%

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Economic Impacts

Table 208 – No Action allocation option: ACE (weight) and value of ACE by vessel length group

Stock
Number of Vessels
GOM Cod
GB Cod
GOM Winter
GB Winter
SNEMA Winter
CCGOM YT
GB YT
SNEMA YT
GOM Haddock
GB Haddock
Witch
Plaice
Pollock
Redfish
White Hake
Total

ACE Allocations (metric
tons)
Large
Medium
Small
293
264
626

626
1,839
35
1,897
0
263
1,531
151
297
28,630
512
2,039
2,567
6,134
1,127
47,647

1,922
308
166
103
0
315
169
166
223
3,343
310
1,217
1,486
1,886
664
12,276

4,252
453
139
0
0
262
0
23
340
3,027
168
444
2,147
1,080
509
12,846

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

Value of ACE Allocations
Large
Medium
Small

$2,194,066
$6,444,675
$159,834
$8,656,373
$0
$1,080,174
$6,278,134
$618,908
$1,001,953
$96,569,288
$2,710,205
$7,236,991
$2,603,169
$7,708,028
$2,857,008
$146,118,806

637

$6,735,915
$1,079,732
$756,090
$469,211
$0
$1,289,635
$692,728
$680,433
$753,374
$11,275,526
$1,638,043
$4,318,497
$1,506,827
$2,370,486
$1,683,016
$35,249,511

$14,906,154
$1,589,410
$635,674
$1,460
$0
$1,074,659
$83
$94,849
$1,145,486
$10,211,516
$889,882
$1,577,314
$2,177,523
$1,356,746
$1,291,143
$36,951,899

Average ACE Allocations
per Vessel (pounds)
Large
Medium
Small

4,710
13,834
264
14,272
0
1,982
11,520
1,136
2,235
215,417
3,854
15,341
19,314
46,153
8,479
358,511

16,047
2,572
1,384
859
0
2,626
1,411
1,386
1,865
27,915
2,585
10,160
12,408
15,753
5,544
102,515

14,976
1,597
491
1
0
923
0
81
1,196
10,662
592
1,565
7,562
3,802
1,794
45,242

Average Value of ACE
Allocations per Vessel
Large
Medium
Small

$7,488
$21,995
$546
$29,544
$0
$3,687
$21,427
$2,112
$3,420
$329,588
$9,250
$24,700
$8,885
$26,307
$9,751
$498,699

$25,515
$4,090
$2,864
$1,777
$0
$4,885
$2,624
$2,577
$2,854
$42,710
$6,205
$16,358
$5,708
$8,979
$6,375
$133,521

$23,812
$2,539
$1,015
$2
$0
$1,717
$0
$152
$1,830
$16,312
$1,422
$2,520
$3,478
$2,167
$2,063
$59,029

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Economic Impacts

Table 209 – Proposed Action - Option 1 allocation: ACE (weight) and value of ACE by vessel length group

Stock
GOM Cod
GB Cod
GOM Winter
GB Winter
SNEMA Winter
CCGOM YT
GB YT
SNEMA YT
GOM Haddock
GB Haddock
Witch
Plaice
Pollock
Redfish
White Hake
Total

ACE Allocations (metric
tons)
Large
Medium
Small

1,095
1,576
41
1,910
0
276
1,531
163
412
29,000
515
1,852
2,617
6,145
1,123
48,255

2,038
292
161
89
0
312
169
151
217
3,560
323
1,273
1,556
1,997
688
12,827

3,667
731
138
1
0
252
0
26
231
2,440
152
576
2,027
958
489
11,687

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

Value of ACE Allocations
Large
Medium
Small

$3,836,606
$5,525,769
$185,975
$8,715,340
$0
$1,133,343
$6,276,033
$668,315
$1,388,526
$97,819,324
$2,726,420
$6,572,688
$2,654,024
$7,722,392
$2,845,896
$148,070,653

638

$7,143,860
$1,024,641
$735,085
$408,149
$0
$1,278,619
$694,672
$619,878
$732,781
$12,007,118
$1,710,023
$4,516,924
$1,578,009
$2,509,308
$1,744,989
$36,704,056

$12,855,669
$2,563,406
$630,537
$3,555
$0
$1,032,505
$240
$105,996
$779,505
$8,229,888
$801,686
$2,043,189
$2,055,486
$1,203,561
$1,240,282
$33,545,506

Average ACE Allocations
per Vessel (pounds)
Large
Medium
Small

8,235
11,861
307
14,370
0
2,080
11,516
1,226
3,097
218,205
3,877
13,933
19,692
46,239
8,446
363,085

17,019
2,441
1,345
747
0
2,604
1,415
1,262
1,814
29,726
2,699
10,627
12,994
16,675
5,748
107,117

12,916
2,575
487
3
0
887
0
91
814
8,593
534
2,027
7,138
3,373
1,723
41,160

Average Value of ACE
Allocations per Vessel
Large
Medium
Small

$13,094
$18,859
$635
$29,745
$0
$3,868
$21,420
$2,281
$4,739
$333,854
$9,305
$22,432
$9,058
$26,356
$9,713
$505,361

$27,060
$3,881
$2,784
$1,546
$0
$4,843
$2,631
$2,348
$2,776
$45,482
$6,477
$17,110
$5,977
$9,505
$6,610
$139,031

$20,536
$4,095
$1,007
$6
$0
$1,649
$0
$169
$1,245
$13,147
$1,281
$3,264
$3,284
$1,923
$1,981
$53,587

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Economic Impacts

Table 210 – Option 2 allocation: ACE (weight) and value of ACE by vessel length group

Stock
GOM Cod
GB Cod
GOM Winter
GB Winter
SNEMA Winter
CCGOM YT
GB YT
SNEMA YT
GOM Haddock
GB Haddock
Witch
Plaice
Pollock
Redfish
White Hake
Total

ACE Allocations
(metric tons)
Large
Medium
Small

1,902
1,492
85
1,773
0
353
1,469
197
380
25,043
501
1,848
2,804
5,195
1,122
44,163

1,947
467
131
168
0
255
198
114
228
5,705
288
1,088
1,522
2,132
627
14,869

2,951
641
124
59
0
232
33
29
252
4,253
201
764
1,874
1,773
551
13,737

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

Value of ACE Allocations
Large
Medium
Small

$6,667,158
$5,229,517
$388,798
$8,092,974
$0
$1,449,414
$6,021,816
$807,893
$1,281,315
$84,469,570
$2,650,042
$6,559,091
$2,843,362
$6,527,938
$2,844,731
$135,833,617

639

$6,823,566
$1,636,170
$596,018
$765,026
$0
$1,045,372
$812,718
$465,775
$770,434
$19,242,095
$1,526,037
$3,863,266
$1,543,502
$2,679,290
$1,589,554
$43,358,824

$10,345,412
$2,248,130
$566,782
$269,044
$0
$949,681
$136,411
$120,520
$849,064
$14,344,665
$1,062,050
$2,710,445
$1,900,655
$2,228,033
$1,396,882
$39,127,774

Average ACE Allocations
per Vessel (pounds)
Large
Medium
Small

14,311
11,225
641
13,344
0
2,660
11,050
1,482
2,858
188,426
3,769
13,904
21,096
39,087
8,443
332,296

16,256
3,898
1,091
1,400
0
2,129
1,655
949
1,907
47,638
2,409
9,089
12,710
17,805
5,236
124,171

10,394
2,259
437
208
0
816
117
104
886
14,977
707
2,689
6,600
6,244
1,940
48,378

Average Value of ACE
Allocations per Vessel
Large
Medium
Small

$22,755
$17,848
$1,327
$27,621
$0
$4,947
$20,552
$2,757
$4,373
$288,292
$9,045
$22,386
$9,704
$22,280
$9,709
$463,596

$25,847
$6,198
$2,258
$2,898
$0
$3,960
$3,078
$1,764
$2,918
$72,887
$5,780
$14,634
$5,847
$10,149
$6,021
$164,238

$16,526
$3,591
$905
$430
$0
$1,517
$218
$193
$1,356
$22,915
$1,697
$4,330
$3,036
$3,559
$2,231
$62,504

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Economic Impacts

Table 211 – Option 3 allocation: ACE (weight) and value of ACE by vessel length group

Stock
GOM Cod
GB Cod
GOM Winter
GB Winter
SNEMA Winter
CCGOM YT
GB YT
SNEMA YT
GOM Haddock
GB Haddock
Witch
Plaice
Pollock
Redfish
White Hake
Total

ACE Allocations
(metric tons)
Large
Medium
Small

2,154
1,403
101
1,427
0
337
1,167
162
409
22,770
492
1,800
2,774
5,223
1,105
41,323

1,862
468
123
293
0
260
295
118
215
6,118
284
1,095
1,547
2,126
629
15,434

2,784
729
117
280
0
243
238
60
236
6,111
214
805
1,880
1,751
566
16,014

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

Value of ACE Allocations
Large
Medium
Small

$7,550,559
$4,916,394
$459,616
$6,514,305
$0
$1,380,567
$4,785,186
$663,591
$1,379,698
$76,805,269
$2,600,931
$6,389,503
$2,812,694
$6,563,241
$2,800,798
$125,622,352

640

$6,526,565
$1,642,034
$559,872
$1,335,428
$0
$1,066,272
$1,211,427
$482,757
$725,964
$20,637,366
$1,504,310
$3,886,354
$1,568,381
$2,672,125
$1,595,303
$45,414,159

$9,759,011
$2,555,388
$532,109
$1,277,311
$0
$997,628
$974,332
$247,840
$795,150
$20,613,695
$1,132,889
$2,856,946
$1,906,444
$2,199,895
$1,435,065
$47,283,705

Average ACE Allocations
per Vessel (pounds)
Large
Medium
Small

16,207
10,553
758
10,741
0
2,533
8,780
1,218
3,078
171,329
3,699
13,545
20,869
39,298
8,312
310,921

15,548
3,912
1,025
2,444
0
2,171
2,467
983
1,797
51,093
2,374
9,144
12,915
17,757
5,255
128,885

9,805
2,567
411
986
0
857
837
213
830
21,522
754
2,835
6,621
6,165
1,993
56,395

Average Value of ACE
Allocations per Vessel
Large
Medium
Small

$25,770
$16,780
$1,569
$22,233
$0
$4,712
$16,332
$2,265
$4,709
$262,134
$8,877
$21,807
$9,600
$22,400
$9,559
$428,745

$24,722
$6,220
$2,121
$5,058
$0
$4,039
$4,589
$1,829
$2,750
$78,172
$5,698
$14,721
$5,941
$10,122
$6,043
$172,023

$15,589
$4,082
$850
$2,040
$0
$1,594
$1,556
$396
$1,270
$32,929
$1,810
$4,564
$3,045
$3,514
$2,292
$75,533

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Economic Impacts

Table 212 – Option 4 allocation: ACE (weight) and value of ACE by vessel length group

Stock
GOM Cod
GB Cod
GOM Winter
GB Winter
SNEMA Winter
CCGOM YT
GB YT
SNEMA YT
GOM Haddock
GB Haddock
Witch
Plaice
Pollock
Redfish
White Hake
Total

ACE Allocations
(metric tons)
Large
Medium
Small

1,687
1,224
77
1,290
0
279
1,050
138
350
20,367
424
1,546
2,348
4,598
947
36,325

1,921
491
126
310
0
267
310
121
223
6,424
293
1,127
1,601
2,206
649
16,069

3,192
885
137
400
0
294
340
81
287
8,209
273
1,027
2,252
2,296
704
20,376

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

Value of ACE Allocations
Large
Medium
Small

$5,913,638
$4,290,512
$353,061
$5,887,515
$0
$1,144,022
$4,306,464
$567,847
$1,180,488
$68,697,876
$2,241,208
$5,487,621
$2,380,905
$5,777,937
$2,400,349
$110,629,443

641

$6,734,660
$1,721,600
$573,418
$1,415,109
$0
$1,096,343
$1,272,285
$494,929
$751,289
$21,668,022
$1,550,040
$4,001,006
$1,623,273
$2,771,957
$1,646,211
$47,320,141

$11,187,838
$3,101,704
$625,118
$1,824,420
$0
$1,204,102
$1,392,196
$331,413
$969,036
$27,690,432
$1,446,882
$3,644,175
$2,283,341
$2,885,367
$1,784,607
$60,370,632

Average ACE Allocations
per Vessel (pounds)
Large
Medium
Small

12,694
9,210
582
9,707
0
2,099
7,902
1,042
2,633
153,244
3,187
11,633
17,665
34,596
7,124
273,319

16,044
4,101
1,049
2,589
0
2,233
2,591
1,008
1,860
53,644
2,446
9,413
13,367
18,421
5,422
134,190

11,240
3,116
482
1,408
0
1,034
1,196
285
1,012
28,911
963
3,616
7,929
8,086
2,479
71,758

Average Value of ACE
Allocations per Vessel
Large
Medium
Small

$20,183
$14,643
$1,205
$20,094
$0
$3,905
$14,698
$1,938
$4,029
$234,464
$7,649
$18,729
$8,126
$19,720
$8,192
$377,575

$25,510
$6,521
$2,172
$5,360
$0
$4,153
$4,819
$1,875
$2,846
$82,076
$5,871
$15,155
$6,149
$10,500
$6,236
$179,243

$17,872
$4,955
$999
$2,914
$0
$1,923
$2,224
$529
$1,548
$44,234
$2,311
$5,821
$3,648
$4,609
$2,851
$96,439

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Economic Impacts

Table 213 - No Action Option Contribution Shares by Home Port State
Stock

Number of Vessels
GOM Cod
GB Cod
GOM Winter
GB Winter
SNEMA Winter
CCGOM YT
GB YT
SNEMA YT
GOM Haddock
GB Haddock
Witch
Plaice
Pollock
Redfish
White Hake

Other

716

202

112

0.07%
0.22%
0.04%
0.17%
3.61%
0.03%
0.64%
6.48%
0.02%
0.13%
0.19%
0.17%
0.07%
0.22%
0.06%

61.33%
80.43%
89.02%
85.93%
58.86%
86.90%
61.71%
19.12%
69.47%
72.53%
63.37%
53.23%
53.02%
64.71%
40.52%

19.73%
5.49%
4.13%
1.01%
1.32%
2.72%
0.86%
4.18%
21.57%
9.63%
21.92%
32.45%
32.63%
28.43%
49.49%

0.00%
0.63%
0.01%
1.81%
0.19%
0.25%
7.35%
1.64%
0.00%
1.34%
0.81%
1.28%
0.03%
0.00%
0.00%

17.68%
0.45%
2.37%
0.00%
0.09%
3.97%
0.00%
0.00%
6.95%
0.01%
3.24%
2.26%
11.32%
2.62%
6.25%

0.06%
0.25%
0.04%
0.59%
7.95%
0.07%
2.01%
5.49%
0.05%
0.40%
1.07%
0.91%
0.03%
0.06%
0.13%

0.53%
2.84%
2.26%
2.08%
8.70%
2.12%
6.11%
17.08%
0.29%
3.99%
1.44%
1.68%
0.31%
0.58%
0.39%

0.29%
9.27%
2.10%
8.35%
19.17%
3.93%
20.93%
45.44%
0.49%
11.80%
7.09%
7.07%
1.14%
1.62%
1.57%

0.00%
0.02%
0.00%
0.05%
0.11%
0.00%
0.25%
0.57%
0.00%
0.00%
0.02%
0.01%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%

0.31%
0.41%
0.02%
0.01%
0.00%
0.00%
0.15%
0.00%
1.17%
0.17%
0.84%
0.92%
1.45%
1.75%
1.59%

Table 214 - Proposed Action - Option 1 Contribution Shares by Home Port State
Stock

GOM Cod
GB Cod
GOM Winter
GB Winter
SNEMA Winter
CCGOM YT
GB YT
SNEMA YT
GOM Haddock
GB Haddock
Witch
Plaice
Pollock
Redfish
White Hake

0.52%
0.29%
0.05%
0.15%
3.20%
0.09%
0.50%
3.32%
0.10%
0.17%
0.21%
0.32%
0.10%
0.18%
0.11%

59.38%
82.80%
87.21%
88.35%
64.04%
85.88%
61.42%
31.62%
56.97%
72.39%
61.22%
54.26%
52.63%
59.49%
42.98%

21.75%
5.66%
6.53%
1.32%
3.04%
4.63%
2.22%
4.83%
34.67%
10.64%
24.23%
31.72%
32.57%
30.30%
45.69%

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

0.00%
0.58%
0.00%
1.76%
0.21%
0.32%
6.30%
1.73%
0.00%
1.35%
0.67%
0.81%
0.02%
0.00%
0.00%

642

15.92%
0.95%
2.91%
0.00%
0.25%
4.19%
0.00%
0.00%
4.87%
0.06%
2.60%
2.73%
10.72%
3.34%
6.45%

0.74%
0.44%
0.09%
0.67%
5.99%
0.07%
2.15%
8.78%
0.83%
0.40%
1.33%
1.74%
0.41%
0.62%
0.74%

0.55%
1.99%
1.36%
1.57%
9.01%
1.38%
5.73%
18.93%
0.20%
3.69%
1.49%
1.44%
0.37%
0.79%
0.46%

0.68%
6.75%
1.77%
6.05%
13.99%
3.40%
20.25%
29.45%
0.48%
10.64%
7.30%
6.15%
1.32%
2.32%
1.94%

0.01%
0.21%
0.05%
0.11%
0.19%
0.01%
1.27%
1.10%
0.00%
0.10%
0.08%
0.12%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%

Other

0.46%
0.33%
0.02%
0.02%
0.06%
0.03%
0.16%
0.23%
1.88%
0.56%
0.87%
0.71%
1.85%
2.95%
1.63%

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Economic Impacts

Table 215 - Option 2 Contribution Shares by Home Port State
Stock

GOM Cod
GB Cod
GOM Winter
GB Winter
SNEMA Winter
CCGOM YT
GB YT
SNEMA YT
GOM Haddock
GB Haddock
Witch
Plaice
Pollock
Redfish
White Hake

0.56%
0.78%
0.30%
0.55%
2.24%
0.34%
0.72%
2.63%
0.39%
0.59%
0.66%
0.75%
0.62%
0.50%
0.63%

61.27%
71.73%
75.85%
76.47%
63.37%
75.44%
62.30%
43.80%
59.20%
67.49%
59.10%
56.46%
55.85%
57.92%
50.66%

22.24%
10.22%
14.36%
6.25%
6.76%
10.85%
7.05%
5.08%
29.29%
12.93%
20.94%
24.88%
24.90%
25.35%
31.75%

0.03%
0.97%
0.12%
1.98%
0.86%
0.66%
4.23%
1.93%
0.00%
1.42%
0.97%
1.01%
0.53%
0.20%
0.41%

11.27%
1.84%
4.96%
0.19%
1.00%
4.75%
0.14%
0.42%
6.08%
1.30%
3.84%
3.97%
7.90%
4.55%
5.79%

0.95%
1.76%
0.69%
1.49%
4.90%
0.64%
2.42%
7.15%
0.95%
1.27%
2.49%
2.15%
1.64%
1.50%
1.72%

1.25%
3.41%
1.28%
2.86%
7.53%
1.98%
4.89%
14.05%
1.01%
3.78%
2.96%
2.39%
2.08%
2.36%
2.32%

1.81%
8.36%
1.97%
9.30%
12.51%
4.80%
16.55%
23.66%
1.76%
10.21%
8.00%
7.41%
4.99%
5.62%
5.41%

0.02%
0.34%
0.04%
0.36%
0.35%
0.21%
0.95%
0.95%
0.00%
0.26%
0.24%
0.25%
0.20%
0.19%
0.12%

Other

0.58%
0.58%
0.43%
0.54%
0.49%
0.34%
0.76%
0.34%
1.32%
0.75%
0.81%
0.74%
1.29%
1.79%
1.19%

Table 216 - Option 3 Contribution Shares by Home Port State
Stock

GOM Cod
GB Cod
GOM Winter
GB Winter
SNEMA Winter
CCGOM YT
GB YT
SNEMA YT
GOM Haddock
GB Haddock
Witch
Plaice
Pollock
Redfish
White Hake

0.86%
0.75%
0.63%
0.68%
2.20%
0.65%
0.85%
2.26%
0.65%
0.69%
0.71%
0.76%
0.65%
0.69%
0.66%

58.61%
70.32%
72.53%
73.09%
60.94%
71.86%
59.63%
44.73%
57.40%
65.12%
59.53%
56.05%
55.23%
58.67%
50.41%

19.39%
11.34%
11.78%
9.17%
10.03%
10.83%
9.63%
10.93%
25.85%
13.83%
20.63%
24.37%
24.80%
23.67%
31.36%

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

0.60%
0.89%
0.60%
1.48%
0.71%
0.76%
3.75%
1.47%
0.60%
1.27%
0.94%
1.01%
0.61%
0.60%
0.60%

643

10.41%
2.93%
3.91%
2.45%
2.58%
4.55%
2.45%
2.45%
4.89%
2.48%
3.76%
3.82%
7.81%
4.12%
5.68%

2.14%
1.99%
1.82%
2.10%
4.77%
1.81%
2.85%
6.16%
2.18%
1.97%
2.44%
2.64%
1.98%
2.08%
2.14%

2.55%
3.27%
2.95%
3.06%
6.78%
2.97%
5.14%
11.74%
2.37%
4.12%
3.02%
2.99%
2.46%
2.67%
2.50%

4.65%
7.68%
5.19%
7.34%
11.31%
6.01%
14.43%
19.03%
4.55%
9.63%
7.96%
7.39%
4.97%
5.47%
5.28%

0.20%
0.30%
0.22%
0.25%
0.30%
0.20%
0.83%
0.75%
0.20%
0.25%
0.24%
0.26%
0.20%
0.20%
0.20%

Other

0.58%
0.52%
0.36%
0.36%
0.39%
0.37%
0.43%
0.47%
1.29%
0.63%
0.79%
0.71%
1.28%
1.83%
1.17%

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Economic Impacts

Table 217 - Option 4 Contribution Shares by Home Port State
Stock

GOM Cod
GB Cod
GOM Winter
GB Winter
SNEMA Winter
CCGOM YT
GB YT
SNEMA YT
GOM Haddock
GB Haddock
Witch
Plaice
Pollock
Redfish
White Hake

0.87%
0.76%
0.64%
0.69%
2.22%
0.66%
0.87%
2.28%
0.67%
0.70%
0.72%
0.78%
0.67%
0.71%
0.67%

58.61%
70.32%
72.53%
73.09%
60.94%
71.86%
59.63%
44.73%
57.40%
65.11%
59.53%
56.05%
55.23%
58.66%
50.41%

19.76%
11.71%
12.15%
9.54%
10.40%
11.20%
9.99%
11.30%
26.22%
14.20%
21.00%
24.74%
25.17%
24.03%
31.73%

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

0.51%
0.80%
0.51%
1.39%
0.62%
0.67%
3.66%
1.37%
0.51%
1.18%
0.85%
0.91%
0.52%
0.51%
0.51%

644

11.15%
3.67%
4.65%
3.20%
3.32%
5.29%
3.20%
3.20%
5.63%
3.22%
4.50%
4.56%
8.56%
4.86%
6.42%

2.01%
1.86%
1.68%
1.97%
4.63%
1.67%
2.71%
6.03%
2.05%
1.84%
2.30%
2.51%
1.84%
1.95%
2.01%

2.39%
3.10%
2.79%
2.90%
6.62%
2.80%
4.97%
11.57%
2.21%
3.96%
2.85%
2.83%
2.29%
2.50%
2.34%

4.06%
7.09%
4.60%
6.74%
10.71%
5.42%
13.84%
18.44%
3.96%
9.04%
7.37%
6.79%
4.38%
4.88%
4.69%

0.18%
0.28%
0.20%
0.23%
0.27%
0.18%
0.81%
0.72%
0.17%
0.23%
0.21%
0.23%
0.18%
0.17%
0.17%

Other

0.47%
0.40%
0.25%
0.25%
0.27%
0.25%
0.32%
0.35%
1.18%
0.52%
0.68%
0.59%
1.17%
1.71%
1.05%

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Economic Impacts

Table 218 - No Action Alternative ACE Allocations (metric tons) by Home Port State
Stock
CT
MA
ME
NC
NH
NJ
Number of
Vessels
17
634
161
20
75
65
GOM Cod
5.02
4,170.24
1,341.44
0.00 1,202.32
4.11
GB Cod
5.74
2,091.06
142.77
16.29
11.61
6.61
GOM Winter
0.15
302.66
14.05
0.03
8.05
0.15
GB Winter
3.42
1,718.52
20.21
36.26
0.00
11.73
SNEMA Winter
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
CCGOM YT
0.29
729.92
22.86
2.09
33.37
0.56
GB YT
10.81
1,049.01
14.57
124.99
0.00
34.21
SNEMA YT
22.02
65.00
14.20
5.58
0.00
18.67
GOM Haddock
0.14
597.46
185.53
0.00
59.73
0.39
GB Haddock
46.98
25,386.29
3,368.98
470.31
4.11
140.05
Witch
1.90
627.32
216.97
8.07
32.09
10.63
Plaice
6.35
1,969.61
1,200.65
47.47
83.55
33.80
Pollock
4.65
3,287.48
2,022.76
2.14
701.85
1.65
Redfish
20.02
5,888.86
2,587.58
0.19
238.21
5.40
White Hake
1.41
931.94
1,138.23
0.01
143.80
3.02
Total
128.90
48,815.36
12,290.80
713.42 2,518.70
270.97

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

645

99
35.90
73.75
7.68
41.55
0.00
17.84
103.80
58.09
2.48
1,394.95
14.24
62.23
18.97
53.12
9.06
1,893.65

97
19.80
241.04
7.15
167.09
0.00
33.03
355.86
154.51
4.24
4,129.02
70.21
261.59
70.46
147.33
36.06
5,697.38

VA
8.00
0.09
0.48
0.01
1.03
0.00
0.03
4.22
1.94
0.00
0.64
0.23
0.55
0.03
0.00
0.01
9.25

Other
7
21.06
10.66
0.08
0.20
0.00
0.00
2.53
0.00
10.03
58.68
8.34
34.20
90.01
159.30
36.46
431.55

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Economic Impacts

Table 219 – Proposed Action - Option 1 ACE Allocations (metric tons) by Home Port State
Stock
CT
MA
ME
NC
NH
NJ
NY
GOM Cod
35.07 4,037.97 1,478.70
0.00 1,082.35
50.57
37.72
GB Cod
7.50 2,152.83
147.17
15.20
24.60
11.52
51.76
GOM Winter
0.18
296.53
22.20
0.01
9.89
0.32
4.63
GB Winter
3.08 1,766.94
26.31
35.20
0.01
13.34
31.49
SNEMA Winter
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
CCGOM YT
0.72
721.39
38.91
2.70
35.17
0.60
11.62
GB YT
8.46 1,044.16
37.80
107.18
0.00
36.56
97.39
SNEMA YT
11.29
107.51
16.43
5.88
0.01
29.87
64.35
GOM Haddock
0.86
489.92
298.20
0.00
41.91
7.11
1.72
GB Haddock
25,336.0
61.16
3 3,724.53
470.80
20.47
138.46 1,292.05
Witch
2.04
606.10
239.88
6.63
25.78
13.17
14.74
Plaice
11.94 2,007.67 1,173.51
29.89
100.90
64.53
53.10
Pollock
6.50 3,262.89 2,019.26
1.31
664.66
25.53
22.90
Redfish
16.79 5,413.85 2,757.64
0.21
303.66
56.63
71.62
White Hake
2.59
988.47 1,050.96
0.05
148.33
16.97
10.55
Total
48,232.2 13,031.4
4
8
168.18
675.08 2,457.74
465.16 1,765.63

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

646

RI
45.92
175.40
6.01
121.06
0.00
28.59
344.22
100.13
4.14

VA
0.60
5.41
0.16
2.18
0.00
0.06
21.54
3.74
0.00

Other
31.10
8.61
0.07
0.40
0.00
0.25
2.70
0.79
16.15

3,723.97
72.23
227.64
81.69
211.29
44.55

35.86
0.79
4.47
0.30
0.04
0.02

196.68
8.65
26.34
114.96
268.26
37.52

5,186.83

75.17

712.48

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Economic Impacts

Table 220 – Option 2 ACE Allocations (metric tons) by Home Port State
Stock
CT
MA
ME
NC
NH
GOM Cod
38.34
4,166.52
1,512.35
2.18
766.66
GB Cod
20.40
1,865.00
265.82
25.33
47.88
GOM Winter
1.03
257.90
48.81
0.40
16.85
GB Winter
11.09
1,529.40
124.99
39.59
3.74
SNEMA Winter
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
CCGOM YT
2.89
633.71
91.11
5.56
39.88
GB YT
12.16
1,059.09
119.83
71.85
2.39
SNEMA YT
8.95
148.93
17.26
6.56
1.44
GOM Haddock
3.32
509.11
251.91
0.00
52.28
GB Haddock
207.36
23,622.03
4,526.58
496.10
454.99
Witch
6.54
585.12
207.28
9.56
38.03
Plaice
27.68
2,088.94
920.47
37.30
146.97
Pollock
38.42
3,462.60
1,543.66
33.07
489.76
Redfish
45.57
5,271.13
2,307.06
18.61
414.44
White Hake
14.58
1,165.16
730.33
9.49
133.11
Total
438.33
46,364.62
12,667.46
755.59 2,608.42

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

647

NJ
64.94
45.79
2.34
29.84
0.00
5.34
41.17
24.29
8.16
443.82
24.64
79.58
101.95
136.78
39.53
1,048.17

NY
85.29
88.64
4.36
57.30
0.00
16.62
83.20
47.75
8.71
1,323.21
29.27
88.30
128.95
214.34
53.26
2,229.21

RI
123.39
217.40
6.70
186.09
0.00
40.32
281.29
80.44
15.14
3,573.57
79.16
274.32
309.15
511.84
124.37
5,823.17

VA
1.07
8.76
0.13
7.12
0.00
1.77
16.16
3.21
0.00
89.46
2.39
9.16
12.26
17.54
2.80
171.83

Other
39.27
14.99
1.48
10.85
0.00
2.82
12.87
1.16
11.37
262.89
8.00
27.28
80.18
162.69
27.36
663.20

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Economic Impacts

Table 221 – Option 3 ACE Allocations (metric tons) by Home Port State
Stock
CT
MA
ME
NC
NH
GOM Cod
58.49
3,985.63
1,318.28
40.89
708.02
GB Cod
19.41
1,828.37
294.95
23.23
76.10
GOM Winter
2.14
246.60
40.05
2.05
13.29
GB Winter
13.59
1,461.89
183.43
29.63
49.08
SNEMA Winter
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
CCGOM YT
5.42
603.63
90.97
6.40
38.19
GB YT
14.47
1,013.74
163.63
63.81
41.71
SNEMA YT
7.69
152.09
37.16
4.98
8.35
GOM Haddock
5.61
493.68
222.32
5.17
42.06
GB Haddock
241.39
22,790.45
4,842.09
445.84
869.00
Witch
6.98
589.37
204.23
9.27
37.18
Plaice
28.26
2,073.92
901.76
37.19
141.24
Pollock
40.60
3,424.56
1,537.48
37.93
484.45
Redfish
63.21
5,338.76
2,153.57
54.82
375.11
White Hake
15.15
1,159.42
721.30
13.85
130.60
Total
522.39
45,162.11
12,711.21
775.07 3,014.36

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

648

NJ
145.65
51.78
6.18
42.07
0.00
15.17
48.37
20.95
18.78
688.76
24.11
97.76
122.51
189.40
49.20
1,520.68

NY
173.54
85.02
10.05
61.24
0.00
24.92
87.36
39.91
20.42
1,442.17
29.89
110.72
152.48
242.81
57.59
2,538.11

RI
315.96
199.73
17.66
146.70
0.00
50.49
245.36
64.72
39.12
3,370.08
78.77
273.25
308.00
497.75
121.38
5,728.97

VA
13.93
7.92
0.76
5.10
0.00
1.71
14.18
2.55
1.72
88.08
2.38
9.65
12.57
18.26
4.62
183.43

Other
39.60
13.50
1.24
7.27
0.00
3.10
7.36
1.60
11.12
222.15
7.83
26.26
79.41
166.32
26.90
613.66

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Economic Impacts

Table 222 – Option 4 ACE Allocations (metric tons) by Home Port State
Stock
CT
MA
ME
NC
NH
GOM Cod
59.46
3,985.43
1,343.34
34.70
758.46
GB Cod
19.78
1,828.29
304.53
20.87
95.38
GOM Winter
2.19
246.59
41.30
1.74
15.81
GB Winter
13.87
1,461.83
190.80
27.81
63.91
SNEMA Winter
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
CCGOM YT
5.54
603.61
94.07
5.64
44.43
GB YT
14.71
1,013.69
169.90
62.26
54.32
SNEMA YT
7.74
152.08
38.41
4.67
10.87
GOM Haddock
5.73
493.65
225.49
4.39
48.44
GB Haddock
246.37
22,789.40
4,971.06
413.97 1,128.63
Witch
7.12
589.34
207.87
8.37
44.53
Plaice
28.78
2,073.81
915.40
33.83
168.68
Pollock
41.48
3,424.38
1,560.33
32.29
530.45
Redfish
64.50
5,338.48
2,187.11
46.54
442.61
White Hake
15.47
1,159.35
729.77
11.76
147.66
Total
532.74
45,159.93 12,979.38
708.83 3,554.18

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

649

NJ
136.66
48.35
5.73
39.43
0.00
14.06
46.12
20.50
17.64
642.50
22.80
92.87
114.31
177.37
46.16
1,424.50

NY
162.29
80.72
9.48
57.93
0.00
23.53
84.55
39.35
19.00
1,384.27
28.25
104.60
142.23
227.76
53.79
2,417.74

RI
275.75
184.36
15.65
134.88
0.00
45.52
235.31
62.71
34.04
3,163.12
72.92
251.37
271.33
443.94
107.78
5,298.67

VA
12.15
7.24
0.67
4.58
0.00
1.49
13.73
2.46
1.50
78.92
2.12
8.68
10.95
15.88
4.02
164.39

Other
31.75
10.50
0.85
4.96
0.00
2.13
5.40
1.21
10.13
181.74
6.68
21.99
72.25
155.82
24.24
529.64

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Economic Impacts

Table 223 – No Action ACE value by homeport state
Stock
CT
MA
ME
Number of Vessels
17
634
161
GOM Cod
$17,602
$14,618,009
$4,702,180
GB Cod
$20,134
$7,329,820
$500,440
GOM Winter
$683
$1,381,190
$64,130
GB Winter
$15,619
$7,842,484
$92,251
SNEMA Winter
$0
$0
$0
CCGOM YT
$1,203
$2,993,087
$93,720
GB YT
$44,331
$4,301,516
$59,762
SNEMA YT
$90,309
$266,519
$58,240
GOM Haddock
$462
$2,015,257
$625,796
GB Haddock
$158,470
$85,628,905 $11,363,682
Witch
$10,048
$3,319,187
$1,147,984
Plaice
$22,528
$6,990,955
$4,261,583
Pollock
$4,711
$3,333,888
$2,051,315
Redfish
$25,153
$7,400,073
$3,251,616
White Hake
$3,578
$2,362,729
$2,885,743
Total
$414,832 $149,783,621 $31,158,442

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

650

NC
20
$0
$57,101
$118
$165,458
$0
$8,589
$512,527
$22,875
$0
$1,586,376
$42,690
$168,478
$2,171
$235
$34
$2,566,652

NH
75
$4,214,511
$40,712
$36,733
$0
$0
$136,852
$0
$0
$201,479
$13,855
$169,810
$296,570
$711,753
$299,337
$364,569
$6,486,181

NJ
65
$14,416
$23,159
$675
$53,512
$0
$2,287
$140,280
$76,558
$1,317
$472,396
$56,255
$119,965
$1,673
$6,780
$7,665
$976,938

NY
99
$125,850
$258,502
$35,032
$189,624
$0
$73,142
$425,627
$238,189
$8,372
$4,705,213
$75,334
$220,887
$19,236
$66,753
$22,973
$6,464,734

RI
97
$69,415
$844,919
$32,609
$762,505
$0
$135,458
$1,459,238
$633,557
$14,304
$13,927,327
$371,465
$928,490
$71,454
$185,139
$91,431
$19,527,312

VA
8
$322
$1,670
$48
$4,681
$0
$112
$17,291
$7,942
$7
$2,172
$1,230
$1,960
$32
$0
$13
$37,480

Other
7
$73,829
$37,360
$381
$909
$0
$17
$10,374
$0
$33,817
$197,933
$44,125
$121,386
$91,285
$200,175
$92,432
$904,023

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Economic Impacts

1
Table 224 – Proposed Action - Option 1 ACE value by homeport state
Stock
CT
MA
ME
NC
NH
GOM Cod
$122,947
$14,154,352
$5,183,290
$12 $3,793,979
GB Cod
$26,274
$7,546,338
$515,892
$53,285
$86,246
GOM Winter
$831
$1,353,224
$101,303
$53
$45,141
GB Winter
$14,064
$8,063,450
$120,049
$160,657
$26
SNEMA
Winter
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
CCGOM YT
$2,949
$2,958,083
$159,571
$11,068
$144,207
GB YT
$34,684
$4,281,647
$154,989
$439,507
$0
SNEMA YT
$46,292
$440,865
$67,360
$24,112
$29
GOM
Haddock
$2,886
$1,652,505
$1,005,836
$0
$141,365
GB Haddock
$206,295
$85,459,382 $12,562,985 $1,588,014
$69,037
Witch
$10,803
$3,206,877
$1,269,211
$35,092
$136,420
Plaice
$42,382
$7,126,048
$4,165,260
$106,107
$358,147
Pollock
$6,596
$3,308,947
$2,047,761
$1,333
$674,043
Redfish
$21,100
$6,803,158
$3,465,309
$268
$381,582
White Hake
$6,555
$2,506,056
$2,664,484
$116
$376,050
Total
$544,661 $148,860,931 $33,483,301 $2,419,626 $6,206,273

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

651

NJ
$177,265
$40,381
$1,450
$60,861

NY
$132,235
$181,431
$21,109
$143,723

RI
$160,947
$614,833
$27,447
$552,440

VA
$2,100
$18,968
$716
$9,956

Other
$109,009
$30,167
$324
$1,818

$0
$2,462
$149,905
$122,468

$0
$47,634
$399,338
$263,882

$0
$117,234
$1,411,492
$410,604

$0
$237
$88,322
$15,334

$0
$1,022
$11,061
$3,243

$23,992
$467,017
$69,665
$229,028
$25,885
$71,168
$43,034
$1,484,581

$5,785
$4,358,131
$77,966
$188,489
$23,224
$90,001
$26,738
$5,959,687

$13,951
$12,561,077
$382,151
$807,988
$82,846
$265,510
$112,956
$17,521,476

$3
$120,971
$4,177
$15,868
$302
$56
$45
$277,055

$54,489
$663,420
$45,766
$93,485
$116,582
$337,108
$95,132
$1,562,624

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Economic Impacts

Table 225 – Option 2 ACE value by homeport state
Stock
CT
MA
ME
NC
GOM Cod
$134,404
$14,604,946
$5,301,245
$7,652
GB Cod
$71,501
$6,537,401
$931,792
$88,788
GOM Winter
$4,712
$1,176,923
$222,768
$1,831
GB Winter
$50,603
$6,979,431
$570,388
$180,659
SNEMA
Winter
$0
$0
$0
$0
CCGOM YT
$11,853
$2,598,554
$373,586
$22,785
GB YT
$49,856
$4,342,846
$491,363
$294,623
SNEMA YT
$36,707
$610,681
$70,780
$26,895
GOM
Haddock
$11,194
$1,717,254
$849,696
$0
GB Haddock
$699,419
$79,677,994 $15,268,324 $1,673,355
Witch
$34,618
$3,095,890
$1,096,744
$50,594
Plaice
$98,230
$7,414,509
$3,267,108
$132,403
Pollock
$38,960
$3,511,480
$1,565,451
$33,537
Redfish
$57,268
$6,623,818
$2,899,103
$23,382
White Hake
$36,972
$2,954,012
$1,851,608
$24,055
Total
$1,336,296 $141,845,737 $34,759,957 $2,560,560

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

652

NH
$2,687,388
$167,830
$76,904
$17,084

NJ
$227,623
$160,505
$10,677
$136,181

NY
$298,959
$310,699
$19,900
$261,468

RI
$432,519
$762,052
$30,580
$849,217

VA
$3,761
$30,707
$572
$32,504

Other
$137,639
$52,542
$6,731
$49,509

$0
$163,523
$9,795
$5,915

$0
$21,881
$168,807
$99,616

$0
$68,171
$341,160
$195,821

$0
$165,317
$1,153,456
$329,831

$0
$7,250
$66,252
$13,177

$0
$11,546
$52,788
$4,769

$176,357
$1,534,698
$201,200
$521,641
$496,673
$520,796
$337,460
$6,917,264

$27,509
$1,497,019
$130,392
$282,477
$103,388
$171,885
$100,225
$3,138,186

$29,370
$4,463,251
$154,890
$313,422
$130,768
$269,340
$135,041
$6,992,261

$51,071
$12,053,777
$418,818
$973,681
$313,515
$643,185
$315,327
$18,492,345

$2
$301,742
$12,656
$32,503
$12,437
$22,047
$7,096
$542,705

$38,359
$886,750
$42,327
$96,828
$81,308
$204,435
$69,371
$1,734,905

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Economic Impacts

Table 226 – Option 3 ACE value by homeport state
Stock
CT
MA
ME
NC
GOM Cod
$205,042
$13,970,882
$4,621,000
$143,321
GB Cod
$68,031
$6,408,998
$1,033,876
$81,440
GOM
Winter
$9,761
$1,125,353
$182,751
$9,356
GB Winter
$62,005
$6,671,379
$837,081
$135,205
SNEMA
Winter
$0
$0
$0
$0
CCGOM YT
$22,221
$2,475,224
$373,039
$26,244
GB YT
$59,329
$4,156,907
$670,985
$261,666
SNEMA YT
$31,544
$623,649
$152,378
$20,439
GOM
Haddock
$18,915
$1,665,203
$749,887
$17,441
GB
Haddock
$814,218
$76,873,048 $16,332,541 $1,503,823
Witch
$36,952
$3,118,371
$1,080,568
$49,040
Plaice
$100,292
$7,361,194
$3,200,727
$132,015
Pollock
$41,169
$3,472,902
$1,559,185
$38,470
Redfish
$79,426
$6,708,798
$2,706,227
$68,889
White Hake
$38,399
$2,939,474
$1,828,695
$35,118
Total
$1,587,306 $137,571,384 $35,328,938 $2,522,468

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

653

NH
$2,481,835
$266,740

NJ
$510,556
$181,514

NY
$608,316
$298,026

RI
$1,107,538
$700,118

VA
$48,822
$27,750

Other
$138,824
$47,323

$60,641
$223,955

$28,190
$191,988

$45,849
$279,474

$80,580
$669,491

$3,467
$23,270

$5,651
$33,195

$0
$156,617
$171,040
$34,222

$0
$62,201
$198,345
$85,912

$0
$102,168
$358,236
$163,655

$0
$207,034
$1,006,114
$265,376

$0
$7,022
$58,132
$10,461

$0
$12,696
$30,190
$6,553

$141,857

$63,343

$68,877

$131,967

$5,815

$37,506

$2,931,157
$196,733
$501,301
$491,293
$471,367
$331,099
$8,459,857

$2,323,223
$127,553
$346,978
$124,238
$238,000
$124,734
$4,606,776

$4,864,481
$158,134
$392,975
$154,634
$305,117
$146,010
$7,945,951

$11,367,417
$416,779
$969,868
$312,343
$625,484
$307,734
$18,167,844

$297,091
$12,587
$34,254
$12,752
$22,946
$11,709
$576,080

$749,329
$41,413
$93,199
$80,533
$209,005
$68,193
$1,553,610

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Economic Impacts

Table 227 – Option 4 ACE value by homeport state
Stock
CT
MA
ME
NC
GOM Cod
$208,431
$13,970,168
$4,708,837
$121,622
GB Cod
$69,327
$6,408,725
$1,067,461
$73,143
GOM
Winter
$9,982
$1,125,307
$188,469
$7,943
GB Winter
$63,303
$6,671,106
$870,714
$126,897
SNEMA
Winter
$0
$0
$0
$0
CCGOM YT
$22,711
$2,475,121
$385,732
$23,109
GB YT
$60,320
$4,156,699
$696,673
$255,320
SNEMA YT
$31,742
$623,608
$157,516
$19,170
GOM
Haddock
$19,328
$1,665,116
$760,576
$14,801
GB
Haddock
$831,005
$76,869,509 $16,767,585 $1,396,353
Witch
$37,697
$3,118,214
$1,099,871
$44,272
Plaice
$102,159
$7,360,800
$3,249,122
$120,059
Pollock
$42,063
$3,472,714
$1,582,355
$32,747
Redfish
$81,052
$6,708,455
$2,748,366
$58,479
White Hake
$39,229
$2,939,299
$1,850,183
$29,810
Total
$1,618,350 $137,564,839 $36,133,460 $2,323,725

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

654

NH
$2,658,654
$334,348

NJ
$479,052
$169,469

NY
$568,890
$282,952

RI
$966,591
$646,226

VA
$42,587
$25,366

Other
$111,303
$36,801

$72,150
$291,661

$26,139
$179,925

$43,282
$264,377

$71,405
$615,521

$3,062
$20,883

$3,859
$22,658

$0
$182,169
$222,751
$44,565

$0
$57,649
$189,132
$84,070

$0
$96,471
$346,706
$161,349

$0
$186,667
$964,894
$257,131

$0
$6,121
$56,308
$10,096

$0
$8,719
$22,141
$4,944

$163,376

$59,509

$64,079

$114,814

$5,057

$34,157

$3,806,915
$235,591
$598,722
$537,934
$556,196
$374,356
$10,079,386

$2,167,187
$120,629
$329,620
$115,928
$222,886
$117,027
$4,318,221

$4,669,212
$149,470
$371,253
$144,234
$286,203
$136,365
$7,584,842

$10,669,329
$385,805
$892,211
$275,164
$557,865
$273,254
$16,876,877

$266,210
$11,217
$30,819
$11,108
$19,955
$10,184
$518,970

$613,024
$35,365
$78,037
$73,273
$195,803
$61,461
$1,301,544

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Economic Impacts
Table 228 – No Action ACE allocation (metric tons) by stock area history
GOM
GB Only SNEMA GOM/GB SNEMA
Only
Only
/GOM
Number of Vessels
GOM Cod
GB Cod
GOM Winter
GB Winter
SNEMA Winter
CCGOM YT
GB YT
SNEMA YT
GOM Haddock
GB Haddock
Witch
Plaice
Pollock
Redfish
White Hake
Total

253
2,091.5
0.0
63.1
0.0
0.0
84.9
0.0
0.0
147.3
0.0
94.9
397.5
794.0
413.4
225.4
4,311.9

109
0.0
39.8
0.0
2.8
0.0
0.0
7.2
0.0
0.0
178.8
0.5
4.1
12.6
3.8
1.3
251.0

40
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.9
0.0
0.0
3.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
5.8

135
1,208.4
74.8
8.4
1.9
0.0
25.5
1.1
0.0
173.0
437.0
126.3
791.0
1,548.6
1,551.6
858.2
6,806.0

11
117.3
0.0
6.5
0.0
0.0
8.0
0.0
0.1
6.2
0.0
4.2
12.7
83.1
21.7
6.8
266.5

SNEMA
/GB
149
0.0
103.8
0.0
70.2
0.0
0.0
113.5
184.8
0.0
1,474.4
23.8
84.1
24.1
19.2
8.5
2,106.6

GOM/GB/
SNEMA
452
3,382.8
2,381.6
262.0
1,925.0
0.0
721.5
1,578.2
153.3
533.5
32,909.7
736.3
2,410.5
3,731.7
7,088.8
1,197.0
59,011.9

Table 229 – Proposed Action - Option 1 ACE allocation (metric tons) by stock area history
GOM
GB Only SNEMA GOM/GB SNEMA/ SNEMA/ GOM/GB/
Only
Only
GOM
GB
SNEMA
GOM Cod
GB Cod
GOM Winter
GB Winter
SNEMA Winter
CCGOM YT
GB YT
SNEMA YT
GOM Haddock
GB Haddock
Witch
Plaice
Pollock
Redfish
White Hake
Total

1,850.9
0.0
63.5
0.0
0.0
88.6
0.0
0.0
99.4
0.0
95.7
482.7
615.8
370.4
207.0
3,874.1

0.0
70.5
0.0
3.7
0.0
0.0
6.9
0.0
0.0
126.7
1.1
3.4
15.9
2.4
1.5
232.1

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
11.2
0.0
0.0
2.3
0.0
3.2
3.0
5.1
24.7

655

1,407.0
128.4
10.5
1.1
0.0
25.4
0.7
0.0
206.1
501.9
156.8
796.5
1,764.7
1,696.3
847.6
7,543.1

113.0
0.0
7.7
0.0
0.0
5.0
0.0
0.0
8.7
0.0
4.6
25.3
68.5
42.4
9.1
284.4

0.0
125.3
0.0
54.5
0.0
0.0
123.5
147.8
0.0
1,177.0
24.1
65.1
27.5
50.9
11.1
1,806.8

3,429.0
2,275.8
258.3
1,940.7
0.0
721.0
1,568.9
181.0
545.8
33,194.3
705.0
2,324.8
3,694.9
6,929.5
1,214.6
58,983.6

Unit
Stocks
Only
34
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
5.9
1.5
2.8
10.3

Unit
Stocks
Only
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
2.1
9.4
5.2
3.9
21.1

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Economic Impacts

Table 230 – Option 2 ACE allocation (metric tons) by stock area history
GOM
GB Only SNEMA GOM/GB SNE/MA
Only
Only
/GOM
GOM Cod
GB Cod
GOM Winter
GB Winter
SNEMA Winter
CCGOM YT
GB YT
SNEMA YT
GOM Haddock
GB Haddock
Witch
Plaice
Pollock
Redfish
White Hake
Total

1,501.8
0.0
59.6
0.0
0.0
91.8
0.0
0.0
124.6
0.0
106.1
470.3
690.4
791.2
244.6
4,080.4

0.0
60.6
0.0
5.8
0.0
0.0
7.9
0.0
0.0
315.9
2.7
12.4
58.1
40.2
8.9
512.4

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
8.2
0.0
0.0
4.6
2.5
12.0
7.4
5.5
40.2

1,264.6
244.5
29.7
24.4
0.0
56.0
41.8
0.0
175.1
2,527.8
134.9
614.5
1,263.7
1,479.4
560.8
8,417.2

89.9
0.0
5.7
0.0
0.0
6.0
0.0
1.4
8.5
0.0
5.9
26.7
56.9
59.0
13.1
273.2

SNEMA/ GOM/GB/
GB
SNEMA
0.0
211.3
0.0
109.2
0.0
0.0
133.7
107.8
0.0
1,991.0
61.0
171.5
272.6
320.1
112.0
3,490.2

3,943.7
2,083.6
245.1
1,860.6
0.0
686.2
1,516.6
222.5
551.8
30,165.3
674.1
2,399.7
3,837.5
6,396.2
1,351.6
55,934.6

Table 231 – Option 3 ACE allocation (metric tons) by stock area history
GOM
GB Only SNEMA GOM/GB SNEMA/G SNEMA/G GOM/GB/
Only
Only
OM
B
SNEMA
GOM Cod
GB Cod
GOM Winter
GB Winter
SNEMA Winter
CCGOM YT
GB YT
SNEMA YT
GOM Haddock
GB Haddock
Witch
Plaice
Pollock
Redfish
White Hake

1,339.5
158.3
52.5
121.8
0.0
95.4
103.5
20.7
102.1
2,131.2
108.2
466.7
685.4
739.3
243.6
6,368.1

57.2
57.1
2.9
18.7
0.0
7.1
17.7
2.9
7.2
357.6
8.9
32.8
60.1
77.7
20.1
727.8

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

27.2
10.4
1.4
8.0
0.0
3.4
6.8
6.9
3.4
140.1
5.1
14.8
26.4
37.9
11.8
303.6

656

1,109.4
219.4
25.5
119.9
0.0
62.8
101.8
20.3
154.4
2,339.8
137.5
619.1
1,252.4
1,391.2
561.1
8,114.6

80.5
9.2
5.0
7.0
0.0
5.5
6.0
1.2
7.4
123.4
5.8
25.7
56.1
53.3
12.6
398.7

338.7
192.1
16.9
126.9
0.0
41.8
146.4
90.8
42.8
2,331.8
61.4
216.9
322.6
478.7
120.1
4,527.9

3,843.2
1,951.8
235.6
1,596.4
0.0
623.5
1,316.6
196.9
542.1
27,553.6
662.4
2,320.7
3,788.3
6,313.4
1,327.3
52,271.9

Unit
Stocks
Only
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.6
2.2
8.8
6.6
3.5
21.9

Unit
Stocks
Only
4.4
1.7
0.2
1.3
0.0
0.5
1.1
0.2
0.6
22.5
0.9
3.4
8.7
8.4
3.4
57.4

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Economic Impacts

Table 232 – Option 4 ACE allocation (metric tons) by stock area history
GOM
GB Only SNEMA GOM/GB SNEMA/G SNEMA/G GOM/GB/
Only
Only
OM
B
SNEMA
GOM Cod
GB Cod
GOM Winter
GB Winter
SNEMA Winter
CCGOM YT
GB YT
SNEMA YT
GOM Haddock
GB Haddock
Witch
Plaice
Pollock
Redfish
White Hake

1,495.5
217.9
60.3
167.6
0.0
114.7
142.5
28.5
121.8
2,933.8
130.9
551.5
827.6
948.0
296.3
8,036.8

77.4
64.8
3.9
24.6
0.0
9.6
22.8
3.9
9.8
461.6
11.8
43.8
78.5
104.8
26.9
944.1

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

27.7
10.6
1.4
8.2
0.0
3.4
6.9
7.0
3.5
142.7
5.2
15.1
26.9
38.6
11.9
309.0

657

1,174.4
244.3
28.8
139.1
0.0
70.9
118.1
23.5
162.6
2,674.8
147.0
654.5
1,311.7
1,478.3
583.1
8,811.1

87.3
11.8
5.4
9.1
0.0
6.3
7.7
1.5
8.2
158.4
6.8
29.4
62.3
62.4
14.9
471.6

323.6
186.4
16.2
122.4
0.0
40.0
142.7
90.1
40.9
2,254.2
59.2
208.7
308.8
458.5
115.0
4,366.7

3,609.2
1,862.4
223.9
1,527.6
0.0
594.6
1,258.1
185.3
512.5
26,349.4
628.3
2,193.3
3,575.0
6,000.3
1,248.2
49,768.0

Unit
Stocks
Only
4.9
1.9
0.2
1.4
0.0
0.6
1.2
0.2
0.6
25.0
1.0
3.7
9.2
9.1
3.6
62.6

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Economic Impacts

Table 233 – No Action estimated ACE value by stock area history

Number of
Vessels
GOM Cod
GB Cod
GOM
Winter
GB Winter
SNEMA
Winter
CCGOM
YT
GB YT
SNEMA YT
GOM
Haddock
GB
Haddock
Witch
Plaice
Pollock
Redfish
White Hake
Total

GOM Only

GB Only

SNEMA
Only

$7,331,413
$0

$0
$139,516

$0
$0

$4,235,864
$262,252

$411,159
$0

$0
$363,883

$11,857,699
$8,348,166

$0
$0

$287,830
$0

$0
$13,001

$0
$0

$38,462
$8,737

$29,492
$0

$0
$320,517

$1,195,814
$8,784,788

$0
$0

$348,214
$0
$0

$0
$29,463
$0

$0
$0
$7,739

$104,743
$4,515
$0

$32,909
$0
$308

$0
$465,611
$757,712

$2,958,601
$6,471,357
$628,430

$0
$0
$0

$496,712

$583,666

$20,938

$1,799,496

$0
$501,974
$1,410,921
$805,234
$519,451
$571,467

$603,187
$2,893
$14,588
$12,781
$4,811
$3,235

$0
$20,055
$0
$14
$0
$281

$1,474,020
$668,480
$2,807,729
$1,570,438
$1,949,765
$2,175,692

$0
$22,320
$44,932
$84,242
$27,258
$17,195

$4,973,344
$125,944
$298,566
$24,486
$24,103
$21,609

$111,005,778
$3,895,959
$8,555,928
$3,784,384
$8,907,979
$3,034,705

$12,273,216

$823,475

$28,090

$15,884,362

$690,752

$7,375,774

$181,229,085

$0
$506
$138
$5,941
$1,893
$6,984
$15,46
1

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

GOM/GB

658

SNEMA/
GOM

SNEMA/GB

GOM/GB/
SNEMA

Unit
Stocks
Only

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Economic Impacts

Table 234 – Proposed Action - Option 1 estimated ACE value by stock area history

GOM Cod
GB Cod
GOM
Winter
GB Winter
SNEMA
Winter
CCGOM
YT
GB YT
SNEMA YT
GOM
Haddock
GB
Haddock
Witch
Plaice
Pollock
Redfish
White Hake
Total

GOM Only

GB Only

SNEMA
Only

$6,488,158
$0

$0
$246,981

$0
$0

$4,932,098
$450,219

$396,205
$0

$0
$439,080

$12,019,674
$7,977,537

$0
$0

$289,931
$0

$0
$16,802

$0
$0

$47,787
$5,164

$34,961
$0

$0
$248,766

$1,178,919
$8,856,312

$0
$0

$363,308
$0
$0

$0
$28,349
$0

$0
$0
$45,785

$103,978
$2,914
$0

$20,691
$0
$60

$0
$506,419
$606,025

$2,956,490
$6,433,263
$742,320

$0
$0
$0

$335,203

$695,197

$29,384

$0
$506,560
$1,713,340
$624,518
$465,408
$524,896

$427,444
$5,646
$12,003
$16,166
$3,034
$3,821

$0
$11,970
$77
$3,234
$3,714
$13,050

$1,692,987
$829,552
$2,827,259
$1,789,616
$2,131,560
$2,149,030

$0
$24,183
$89,959
$69,479
$53,314
$22,975

$3,970,110
$127,523
$231,168
$27,925
$63,947
$28,058

$11,311,322

$760,247

$77,830

$17,657,361

$741,208

$6,249,020

$1,841,029
$111,965,78
9
$3,729,936
$8,251,666
$3,747,017
$8,707,787
$3,079,395
$181,487,13
3

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

GOM/GB

659

SNEMA/
GOM

SNEMA/GB

GOM/GB/
SNEMA

Unit
Stocks
Only

$0
$2,760
$7,330
$9,565
$6,496
$9,942
$36,094

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Economic Impacts

Table 235 – Option 2 estimated ACE values by stock area history

GOM
Cod
GB Cod
GOM
Winter
GB
Winter
SNEMA
Winter
CCGOM
YT
GB YT
SNEMA
YT
GOM
Haddock
GB
Haddock
Witch
Plaice
Pollock
Redfish
White
Hake
Total

GOM Only

GB Only

SNEMA
Only

$5,264,418
$0

$0
$212,505

$0
$0

$4,432,740
$857,093

$315,060
$0

$0
$740,589

$13,823,917
$7,303,630

$0
$0

$271,772

$135,441

$25,963

$1,118,422

$26,356

$111,275

$498,471

$8,490,941

$376,236
$0

$0
$32,325

$0
$0

$229,715
$171,302

$24,595
$0

$0
$548,287

$2,813,921
$6,219,032

$0
$0

$33,594

$5,912

$442,145

$912,539

$420,400

$590,538

$28,659

$1,861,216

$0
$561,476
$1,669,427
$700,121
$994,212

$1,065,634
$14,266
$44,093
$58,877
$50,458

$0
$24,457
$8,881
$12,186
$9,301

$8,526,393
$713,718
$2,181,260
$1,281,535
$1,859,032

$0
$31,467
$94,888
$57,676
$74,177

$6,715,568
$322,604
$608,763
$276,478
$402,183

$101,748,735
$3,566,806
$8,517,574
$3,891,678
$8,037,558

$0
$3,334
$7,917
$8,969
$8,340

$620,196
$10,878,258

$22,457
$1,526,971

$13,877
$102,296

$1,421,842
$22,511,883

$33,216
$691,612

$283,973
$10,839,060

$3,426,670
$171,732,638

$8,936
$37,496

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

GOM/GB

660

SNEMA/
GOM

SNEMA/GB

GOM/GB/
SNEMA

Unit
Stocks
Only

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Economic Impacts

Table 236 – Option 3 estimated ACE values by stock area history

GOM
Cod
GB Cod
GOM
Winter
GB
Winter
SNEMA
Winter
CCGOM
YT
GB YT
SNEMA
YT
GOM
Haddock
GB
Haddock
Witch
Plaice
Pollock
Redfish
White
Hake
Total

GOM Only

GB Only

SNEMA
Only

$4,695,488
$554,951

$200,370
$200,103

$95,409
$36,480

$3,888,638
$769,040

$282,124
$32,126

$1,187,219
$673,477

$13,471,552
$6,841,777

$15,334
$5,863

$239,444

$13,043

$6,211

$116,496

$22,950

$77,281

$1,075,175

$998

$555,756

$85,125

$36,533

$547,302

$32,173

$578,979

$7,285,305

$5,871

$391,392
$424,469

$28,955
$72,773

$13,787
$27,903

$257,562
$417,497

$22,487
$24,572

$171,560
$600,415

$2,556,508
$5,398,831

$2,216
$4,484

$84,894

$11,720

$28,473

$83,208

$4,944

$372,453

$807,600

$897

$344,235

$24,385

$11,611

$520,725

$24,917

$144,482

$1,828,591

$1,866

$7,188,584
$572,236
$1,656,341
$695,113
$929,010

$1,206,123
$46,856
$116,398
$60,937
$97,644

$472,542
$26,952
$52,605
$26,784
$47,629

$7,892,333
$727,398
$2,197,422
$1,270,060
$1,748,260

$416,146
$30,556
$91,272
$56,903
$66,966

$7,865,152
$324,660
$769,697
$327,128
$601,536

$92,939,503
$3,504,723
$8,236,954
$3,841,767
$7,933,612

$75,946
$4,750
$12,113
$8,828
$10,604

$617,515
$18,949,428

$50,928
$2,215,359

$29,865
$912,782

$1,422,531
$21,858,472

$32,042
$1,140,179

$304,465
$13,998,505

$3,365,098
$159,086,998

$8,722
$158,493

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

GOM/GB

661

SNEMA/
GOM

SNEMA/GB

GOM/GB/
SNEMA

Unit
Stocks
Only

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Economic Impacts

Table 237 – Option 4 estimated ACE values by stock area history
GOM Only
GB Only
SNEMA
GOM/GB
SNEMA/
Only
GOM
GOM
Cod
GB Cod
GOM
Winter
GB
Winter
SNEMA
Winter
CCGOM
YT
GB YT
SNEMA
YT
GOM
Haddock
GB
Haddock
Witch
Plaice
Pollock
Redfish
White
Hake
Total

SNEMA/GB

GOM/GB/
SNEMA

Unit
Stocks
Only

$5,242,090
$763,945

$271,226
$227,195

$97,165
$37,151

$4,116,786
$856,273

$306,006
$41,257

$1,134,410
$653,285

$12,651,395
$6,528,188

$17,057
$6,522

$275,025

$17,655

$6,325

$131,347

$24,504

$73,844

$1,021,787

$1,110

$765,054

$112,256

$37,205

$634,662

$41,317

$558,758

$6,971,261

$6,531

$470,379
$584,324

$39,194
$93,495

$14,041
$28,416

$290,531
$484,219

$25,938
$31,557

$163,929
$584,971

$2,437,990
$5,158,974

$2,465
$4,989

$116,865

$15,864

$28,576

$96,553

$6,341

$369,365

$759,629

$998

$410,755

$33,008

$11,825

$548,490

$27,823

$138,056

$1,728,780

$2,076

$9,895,808
$692,355
$1,957,498
$839,296
$1,191,239

$1,557,059
$62,427
$155,436
$79,627
$131,636

$481,242
$27,338
$53,573
$27,247
$48,472

$9,022,311
$777,535
$2,323,123
$1,330,241
$1,857,712

$534,427
$35,804
$104,430
$63,202
$78,423

$7,603,598
$313,055
$740,601
$313,198
$576,201

$88,877,403
$3,324,489
$7,785,079
$3,625,425
$7,540,146

$84,483
$5,128
$13,063
$9,282
$11,431

$751,233
$23,955,864

$68,262
$2,864,340

$30,295
$928,871

$1,478,344
$23,948,125

$37,884
$1,358,915

$291,546
$13,514,816

$3,164,459
$151,575,004

$9,144
$174,280

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

662

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Economic Impacts

Table 238 – No Action estimated ACE allocation by sector membership
Stock
GOM Cod
GB Cod
GOM Winter
GB Winter
SNEMA Winter
CCGOM YT
GB YT
SNEMA YT
GOM Haddock
GB Haddock
Witch
Plaice
Pollock
Redfish
White Hake

FGS
11
256
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
1,430
2
5
188
112
11

HOOK
9
74
0
0
0
0
0
0
21
1,342
0
1
13
18
3

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

Multiple
155
18
2
2
0
4
4
3
28
255
21
58
188
356
64

663

MV
3
0
1
0
0
5
11
4
0
1
1
0
0
0
0

NSC
4,576
1,511
234
1,643
0
652
1,303
220
464
20,068
527
1,454
2,749
3,424
630

Port
Clyde
219
1
7
0
0
9
0
3
13
0
30
210
210
215
76

Sustainable
Harvest
569
389
5
141
0
37
111
14
147
8,908
196
1,003
1,836
3,504
858

Tri-State
80
13
19
0
0
24
0
0
8
30
18
43
4
1
1

Common
Pool
1,179
338
72
214
0
109
270
94
179
2,966
196
925
1,012
1,470
657

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Economic Impacts

Table 239 – Proposed Action - Option 1 estimated ACE allocation by sector membership
Port
Stock
FGS
HOOK Multiple
MV
NSC
Clyde
GOM Cod
22
5
144
1
4,202
203
GB Cod
393
187
17
0
1,282
1
GOM Winter
1
0
3
1
220
6
GB Winter
0
0
3
1
1,660
0
SNEMA Winter
0
0
0
0
0
0
CCGOM YT
1
0
8
3
599
5
GB YT
0
0
5
14
1,315
0
SNEMA YT
3
0
2
1
227
1
GOM Haddock
1
10
36
0
366
10
GB Haddock
1,283
924
345
1
19,724
6
Witch
38
3
25
0
429
31
Plaice
37
5
117
0
1,395
65
Pollock
15
0
119
4
3,062
224
Redfish
24
1
140
1
3,605
442
White Hake
16
2
54
0
718
75

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

664

Sustainable
Harvest
760
374
11
127
0
59
98
50
226
8,979
277
1,370
1,307
2,114
770

Tri-State
60
13
22
0
0
30
0
1
5
24
1
0
85
106
2

Common
Pool
1,402
333
76
208
0
134
269
55
206
3,714
186
711
1,385
2,667
663

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Economic Impacts

Table 240 – Option 2 estimated ACE allocations by sector membership
Stock
GOM Cod
GB Cod
GOM Winter
GB Winter
SNEMA Winter
CCGOM YT
GB YT
SNEMA YT
GOM Haddock
GB Haddock
Witch
Plaice
Pollock
Redfish
White Hake

FGS
78
234
4
35
0
13
21
4
6
1,198
14
52
203
183
39

HOOK
34
116
0
8
0
3
3
0
7
778
4
19
57
69
15

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

Multiple
129
27
5
13
0
10
12
2
27
447
16
53
123
220
44

665

MV
6
2
1
3
0
2
9
2
1
25
1
2
3
6
1

NSC
3,740
1,318
194
1,393
0
532
1,130
217
394
19,107
503
1,698
2,945
3,930
958

Port
Clyde
200
12
8
3
0
10
2
2
17
132
29
133
166
197
64

Sustainable
Harvest
966
380
36
250
0
94
221
28
191
7,315
174
694
1,290
2,427
547

Tri-State
80
20
14
3
0
21
2
1
9
172
12
42
36
38
13

Common
Pool
1,568
491
80
294
0
157
300
84
208
5,826
237
1,007
1,376
2,030
619

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Economic Impacts

Table 241 – Option 3 estimated ACE allocations by sector membership
Stock
GOM Cod
GB Cod
GOM Winter
GB Winter
SNEMA Winter
CCGOM YT
GB YT
SNEMA YT
GOM Haddock
GB Haddock
Witch
Plaice
Pollock
Redfish
White Hake

FGS
102
231
5
27
0
12
23
6
12
1,109
18
54
91
153
75

HOOK
54
113
3
15
0
6
13
3
12
725
8
28
47
72
21

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

Multiple
119
27
4
17
0
10
13
3
24
416
22
61
91
171
45

666

MV
4
2
1
9
0
2
1
0
0
19
1
3
4
5
1

NSC
3,838
1,305
208
1,284
0
486
1,140
200
402
18,801
440
1,859
2,812
3,745
1,086

Port
Clyde
174
28
5
21
0
17
18
4
14
377
19
106
217
246
61

Sustainable
Harvest
833
360
35
191
0
69
168
47
171
6,823
249
637
1,134
2,129
475

Tri-State
66
20
8
11
0
32
9
2
7
197
5
45
69
52
13

Common
Pool
1,609
514
72
425
0
206
316
73
218
6,532
227
907
1,736
2,527
523

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Economic Impacts

Table 242 – Option 4 estimated ACE allocations by sector membership
Stock
GOM Cod
GB Cod
GOM Winter
GB Winter
SNEMA Winter
CCGOM YT
GB YT
SNEMA YT
GOM Haddock
GB Haddock
Witch
Plaice
Pollock
Redfish
White Hake

FGS
129
242
6
35
0
15
30
6
16
1,251
18
69
227
204
48

HOOK
78
122
4
22
0
9
19
4
15
850
11
41
78
107
26

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

Multiple
124
29
4
17
0
11
16
4
24
441
17
57
126
213
45

667

MV
4
2
1
2
0
2
8
1
0
19
1
2
3
5
1

NSC
3,788
1,286
194
1,326
0
508
1,079
195
396
18,544
490
1,651
2,882
3,973
930

Port
Clyde
199
38
8
28
0
15
24
6
17
501
32
143
185
210
70

Sustainable
Harvest
717
316
22
163
0
71
133
28
156
6,227
154
614
1,176
2,137
499

Tri-State
73
23
13
13
0
20
11
2
8
231
13
45
40
58
15

Common
Pool
1,687
544
87
394
0
189
381
94
228
6,935
254
1,079
1,482
2,194
665

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Economic Impacts

Table 243 – No Action estimated ACE value by sector membership
Stock
GOM Cod
GB Cod
GOM Winter
GB Winter
SNEMA Winter
CCGOM YT
GB YT
SNEMA YT
GOM Haddock
GB Haddock
Witch
Plaice
Pollock
Redfish
White Hake

FGS
$38,423
$896,698
$89
$336
$0
$967
$4
$7,646
$759
$4,824,557
$12,415
$17,671
$191,124
$141,258
$27,756

HOOK
$31,996
$259,638
$0
$387
$0
$1
$7
$0
$71,637
$4,525,025
$173
$2,628
$13,410
$22,169
$7,156

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

Multiple
$542,957
$62,534
$7,075
$7,715
$0
$16,080
$14,782
$12,107
$93,237
$861,782
$111,457
$206,154
$190,307
$447,339
$162,102

668

MV
$9,131
$890
$6,047
$1,980
$0
$19,760
$46,836
$17,619
$534
$3,825
$2,728
$1,514
$1
$0
$0

NSC
$16,041,101
$5,296,281
$1,067,228
$7,498,030
$0
$2,674,210
$5,343,334
$902,742
$1,563,864
$67,689,116
$2,787,032
$5,162,081
$2,788,303
$4,302,780
$1,597,555

Port
Clyde
$766,352
$2,835
$33,157
$0
$0
$35,633
$0
$10,640
$43,715
$565
$159,150
$745,405
$212,686
$270,065
$193,679

Sustainable
Harvest
$1,993,559
$1,362,667
$22,570
$643,271
$0
$151,903
$457,093
$56,252
$494,529
$30,046,457
$1,034,454
$3,560,957
$1,862,083
$4,403,184
$2,174,776

Tri-State
$279,233
$47,201
$88,052
$0
$0
$98,411
$0
$109
$27,620
$102,216
$92,939
$153,913
$3,559
$1,119
$1,659

Common
Pool
$4,133,382
$1,185,074
$327,381
$975,326
$0
$447,502
$1,108,890
$387,074
$604,918
$10,002,786
$1,037,783
$3,282,478
$1,026,047
$1,847,347
$1,666,484

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Economic Impacts

Table 244 – Proposed Action - Option 1 estimated ACE value by sector membership
Stock
GOM Cod
GB Cod
GOM Winter
GB Winter
SNEMA Winter
CCGOM YT
GB YT
SNEMA YT
GOM Haddock
GB Haddock
Witch
Plaice
Pollock
Redfish
White Hake

FGS
$77,093
$1,376,711
$3,090
$2,186
$0
$3,121
$26
$14,040
$4,756
$4,328,251
$201,373
$131,629
$15,028
$29,604
$39,908

HOOK
$18,608
$654,146
$0
$237
$0
$39
$4
$362
$34,373
$3,116,860
$14,966
$16,880
$164
$1,339
$4,435

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

Multiple
$505,408
$60,761
$14,593
$13,028
$0
$34,497
$21,163
$9,235
$120,647
$1,163,685
$132,964
$413,639
$120,194
$175,322
$137,606

669

MV
$4,652
$953
$4,014
$4,127
$0
$12,801
$56,765
$2,446
$250
$2,511
$3
$42
$4,069
$1,798
$20

NSC
$14,730,412
$4,494,903
$1,003,151
$7,574,926
$0
$2,455,697
$5,390,238
$930,982
$1,233,061
$66,530,295
$2,271,670
$4,952,332
$3,105,086
$4,530,725
$1,821,421

Port
Clyde
$713,190
$4,676
$29,408
$51
$0
$22,536
$72
$2,644
$32,914
$19,064
$163,748
$231,812
$226,936
$555,438
$190,526

Sustainable
Harvest
$2,663,124
$1,310,726
$49,520
$581,830
$0
$242,714
$401,106
$203,292
$763,597
$30,285,987
$1,466,914
$4,862,899
$1,325,630
$2,656,813
$1,951,324

Tri-State
$210,011
$44,803
$101,268
$310
$0
$124,656
$59
$5,530
$17,750
$80,907
$2,806
$1,712
$85,697
$133,303
$5,473

Common
Pool
$4,913,637
$1,166,137
$346,553
$950,347
$0
$548,406
$1,101,511
$225,658
$693,464
$12,528,769
$983,686
$2,521,859
$1,404,717
$3,350,917
$1,680,453

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Economic Impacts

Table 245 – Option 2 estimated ACE values by sector membership
Stock
GOM Cod
GB Cod
GOM Winter
GB Winter
SNEMA Winter
CCGOM YT
GB YT
SNEMA YT
GOM Haddock
GB Haddock
Witch
Plaice
Pollock
Redfish
White Hake

FGS
$274,240
$821,416
$16,272
$158,196
$0
$51,455
$85,432
$16,351
$19,129
$4,040,993
$74,034
$185,961
$205,924
$229,748
$98,618

HOOK
$120,659
$406,636
$1,287
$36,930
$0
$10,604
$12,680
$0
$25,275
$2,623,860
$19,473
$66,446
$57,871
$87,287
$38,634

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

Multiple
$451,671
$95,459
$21,643
$57,707
$0
$41,348
$48,784
$9,098
$90,164
$1,508,147
$87,042
$188,487
$125,147
$276,419
$111,762

670

MV
$20,111
$6,153
$3,412
$11,660
$0
$8,761
$35,544
$6,710
$2,503
$85,362
$4,641
$8,622
$3,489
$7,694
$3,314

NSC
$13,108,193
$4,619,468
$883,569
$6,355,075
$0
$2,180,098
$4,633,393
$890,775
$1,330,393
$64,449,992
$2,663,477
$6,025,827
$2,986,703
$4,938,226
$2,428,559

Port
Clyde
$701,461
$43,286
$34,538
$12,075
$0
$39,190
$9,028
$9,635
$56,529
$443,603
$150,920
$470,361
$167,861
$247,229
$161,185

Sustainable
Harvest
$3,384,658
$1,332,942
$164,033
$1,138,684
$0
$384,408
$906,555
$114,697
$644,686
$24,674,710
$918,713
$2,463,410
$1,308,626
$3,049,828
$1,386,703

Tri-State
$280,187
$68,918
$63,848
$13,258
$0
$84,524
$9,808
$3,462
$29,861
$579,721
$63,398
$147,901
$36,039
$47,799
$33,379

Common
Pool
$5,494,954
$1,719,537
$362,995
$1,343,457
$0
$644,079
$1,229,721
$343,462
$702,272
$19,649,942
$1,256,432
$3,575,787
$1,395,858
$2,551,029
$1,569,014

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Economic Impacts

Table 246 – Option 3 estimated ACE values by sector membership
Stock
GOM Cod
GB Cod
GOM Winter
GB Winter
SNEMA Winter
CCGOM YT
GB YT
SNEMA YT
GOM Haddock
GB Haddock
Witch
Plaice
Pollock
Redfish
White Hake

FGS
$356,870
$810,067
$21,424
$121,906
$0
$49,430
$93,930
$25,639
$41,117
$3,740,729
$96,204
$191,079
$92,107
$191,846
$189,959

HOOK
$188,398
$395,550
$11,667
$68,579
$0
$25,880
$52,467
$10,656
$38,982
$2,445,452
$42,723
$98,845
$47,610
$90,268
$52,143

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

Multiple
$418,820
$93,895
$18,583
$77,462
$0
$40,202
$53,556
$14,334
$80,540
$1,404,585
$118,997
$217,048
$92,017
$214,620
$114,647

671

MV
$15,103
$5,362
$3,715
$42,054
$0
$6,302
$5,313
$1,970
$1,680
$64,538
$2,816
$11,289
$3,865
$6,149
$3,127

NSC
$13,453,220
$4,575,222
$949,393
$5,859,863
$0
$1,993,227
$4,673,201
$821,582
$1,357,431
$63,418,048
$2,325,516
$6,597,075
$2,851,481
$4,706,650
$2,753,774

Port Clyde
$611,504
$99,803
$21,669
$97,654
$0
$69,478
$74,568
$16,232
$47,479
$1,272,053
$102,248
$377,447
$219,940
$309,108
$153,503

Sustainable
Harvest
$2,920,996
$1,263,088
$158,130
$871,191
$0
$284,649
$687,026
$194,613
$575,230
$23,015,190
$1,319,092
$2,260,146
$1,149,668
$2,675,853
$1,205,328

Tri-State
$230,856
$70,521
$36,269
$48,228
$0
$130,591
$36,924
$10,126
$24,191
$663,768
$27,998
$158,836
$69,844
$65,742
$32,349

Common
Pool
$5,640,368
$1,800,308
$330,749
$1,940,109
$0
$844,708
$1,293,961
$299,037
$734,164
$22,031,966
$1,202,536
$3,221,037
$1,760,988
$3,175,025
$1,326,337

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Economic Impacts

Table 247 – Option 4 estimated ACE values by sector membership
Stock
GOM Cod
GB Cod
GOM Winter
GB Winter
SNEMA Winter
CCGOM YT
GB YT
SNEMA YT
GOM Haddock
GB Haddock
Witch
Plaice
Pollock
Redfish
White Hake

FGS
$453,540
$847,029
$28,559
$159,997
$0
$61,530
$121,379
$25,681
$52,882
$4,219,519
$97,457
$245,645
$230,325
$256,398
$121,476

HOOK
$273,321
$428,021
$17,186
$101,213
$0
$38,171
$77,214
$15,442
$49,317
$2,866,060
$58,087
$146,232
$78,625
$134,010
$66,805

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

Multiple
$435,859
$100,410
$19,219
$76,646
$0
$43,716
$64,146
$14,612
$82,613
$1,488,976
$90,316
$201,585
$128,114
$267,953
$113,609

672

MV
$15,130
$5,373
$2,841
$6,966
$0
$8,251
$32,128
$5,824
$1,683
$64,675
$4,509
$8,088
$3,379
$6,161
$3,142

NSC
$13,278,140
$4,508,279
$886,474
$6,051,572
$0
$2,082,304
$4,424,373
$798,426
$1,336,124
$62,550,903
$2,592,824
$5,859,452
$2,923,104
$4,992,796
$2,357,225

Port Clyde
$696,115
$132,155
$36,805
$130,031
$0
$60,331
$99,330
$24,681
$57,776
$1,691,120
$169,142
$506,009
$187,835
$263,807
$178,322

Sustainable
Harvest
$2,514,922
$1,107,824
$101,790
$744,033
$0
$292,360
$546,630
$115,059
$525,811
$21,003,975
$812,241
$2,177,592
$1,192,543
$2,684,872
$1,265,154

Tri-State
$254,301
$79,485
$60,352
$57,321
$0
$83,902
$43,692
$9,020
$27,044
$779,888
$68,505
$158,802
$41,065
$72,369
$39,259

Common
Pool
$5,914,807
$1,905,240
$398,372
$1,799,265
$0
$773,904
$1,562,054
$385,444
$767,563
$23,391,214
$1,345,048
$3,829,397
$1,502,529
$2,756,894
$1,686,174

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Economic Impacts

7.5.1.2.3.2.10

Comparing Sector Contribution Share Alternatives

Each of the sector contribution share alternatives would provide vessel owners with a different
contribution share. Previous analyses identified the implications by vessel size, home port state,
and area fished for each stock for which sector contribution shares would be calculated. The
following compares allocation alternatives for combined contribution shares. The combined
contribution share was estimated by multiplying the contribution share for each groundfish stock
by the TACs shown in Table 206. The combined contribution share was then calculated as the
sum of the individual allocation divided by the combined TAC for all stocks. This approach was
necessary because the sum of all contribution shares actually sums to 15 since the sum the
contribution share for each of 15 individual stocks sums to one.
To facilitate comparisons among alternatives the Proposed Action - Option 1 (landings history
FY 1996 – FY2006) was used as a benchmark where the contribution shares for each vessel were
sorted in ascending order. This procedure also retained the contribution shares by vessel. For
example, when plotted, vessels with lowest to highest combined contribution shares appear in
order from left to right on the x-axis (Figure 151). Plotting any given allocation option on the same
chart illustrates differences between the two alternatives and highlights any associated systematic
patterns. Figure 1 compares the No Action alternative to Proposed Action - Option 1. While there
are differences between the two no discernible systematic pattern emerges in terms of whether
vessels with small allocations under No Action would receive higher allocations under Proposed
Action - Option 1 and vice versa. In part this is because both options use only one criterion –
landings history – and differ only by the time period used.
Compared to Proposed Action - Option 1 the capacity adjusted options all result in a systematic
pattern in which vessels with lower allocations under Proposed Action - Option 1 tend to receive
higher allocations while vessels with higher allocations under Proposed Action - Option 1 tend to
receive lower allocations (See Figures 2-4). This tendency to shift allocations from vessels with
higher landings history-based allocations to vessels with lower history-based allocations appears
to be progressively more pronounced under Option 2 (Figure 152), Option 3 (Figure 153), and
Option 4 (Figure 154).

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

673

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Economic Impacts

Figure 151 Combined Contribution Shares for No Action and Proposed Action - Option 1
2.50%

2.00%

1.50%

1.00%

0.50%

0.00%
No Action

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

674

Option 1

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Economic Impacts

Figure 152 Combined Contribution Shares for Proposed Action - Option 1 and Option 2
2.50%

2.00%

1.50%

1.00%

0.50%

0.00%
Option 1

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

675

Option 2

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Economic Impacts

Figure 153 Combined Contribution Shares for Proposed Action - Option 1 and Option 3
2.50%

2.00%

1.50%

1.00%

0.50%

0.00%
Option 1

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

676

Option 3

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Economic Impacts

Figure 154 Combined Contribution Shares for Proposed Action – Option 1 and Option 4
2.50%

2.00%

1.50%

1.00%

0.50%

0.00%
Option 1

7.5.1.2.3.2.11

Option4

Economic Impacts of Option 5

In addition to Option 1, the Proposed Action adopts PSC Option 5. For permits that committed to
either the GB Cod Hook Sector or the Fixed Gear Sector prior to March 1, 2008, the PSC for GB
cod is based on landings history alone for the period FY 96 – FY 2001. This option essentially
adopts the No Action alternative for a specific group of permits, and maintains the PSC
calculation method used when the sectors formed. This change, however, affects all sector–
eligible permits. Approximate impacts were reviewed using permits that were in the sectors in FY
2007.
The impacts of this option on PSCs depend on which other option is selected. In general, permits
committed to the existing sectors receive a larger allocation of GB cod if Option 5 is adopted
than under any of the other options. As a result, the share of GB cod available for other permits
declines with the adoption of Option 5. The magnitude of the changes differs among the options.
Under the Proposed Action (combining Options 1 and 5), permits that are not committed to the
two existing sectors have their GB cod allocation reduced by approximately 2.1 percent compared
to the allocation if only Option 1 were adopted. The permits committed to the sectors have their
GB cod allocation increased by about the same amount compared to Option 1 without Option 5.
Comparisons are shown in Table 248 for the other options. Permits not committed to the sectors
lose the most GB cod if either Option 2, 3, or 4 were adopted with Option 5.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

677

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Economic Impacts
Table 248 – Relative change in cumulative GB cod PSC under different PSC options. Change
compares allocation with Option 5 to allocation without Option 5.
Option
Vessels Not In Existing
Vessels In an Existing
Sector
Sector in FY -07

No Action with Option 5

-6.5%

6.2%

Proposed Action with Option 5

-2.1%

2.1%

Option 2 with Option 5

-8.4%

8.5%

Option 3 with Option 5

-8.6%

8.6%

Option 4 with Option 5

-8.1%

8.1%

7.5.1.2.3.3

Other PSC Alternative Issues

The selection of a PSC alternative for sectors is viewed as a critical issue for fishermen. While
this action makes it clear that the PSC alternative selected may not guide future allocation
decisions of the Council, many permit owners believe that it will weigh heavily on any future
discussions. A number of questions have been raised about differences between the alternatives.
Many of these are difficult to evaluate quantitatively and are discussed briefly below.
Since sectors are self-selecting and voluntary in nature, some fishermen may be unwilling to join
a sector or may not find a sector willing to accept them as a member. There is a concern that as
sectors from permit holders may take permits with PSC into the sector and leave permits with
DAS but little PSC in the non-sector common pool. The belief is this will create a disconnect
between available effort and available catch in the common pool. Setting aside whether this is any
different from the current situation where the level of effort available is enough to achieve
catches higher than desired, the estimated sector ACE can be compared to the DAS allocations
held by vessels in sectors. Using the information presented in earlier sections, the percentage of
total catch that may be allocated to sector ACE is 87 percent under the No Action alternative, 84
percent under the Proposed Action - Option 1, 80 percent under Option 2, and 78 percent under
Options 3 and 4. Vessels that announced their intention to join sectors account for 72 percent of
the available DAS. In summary, Options 3 and 4 most closely align catch to available DAS while
the No Action alternative results in the largest difference.
Since FY 1994 a key management measure used for groundfish has been DAS, which limited the
fishing opportunities for limited access permits. With the adoption of the DAS leasing and
transfer programs in FY 2004, vessel owners were able to acquire more DAS to mitigate the
impacts of effort reductions in Amendment 13 and subsequent actions. While some permit
holders leased available DAS from other permit holders, others acquired permits and then leased
the DAS to themselves. Since DAS are not specific to any particular area, there was no reason to
acquire a permit that represented fishing activity in any particular area. Key factors in acquiring a
permit for these purposes was finding a permit with matching vessel replacement characteristics,
a reasonable number of DAS, and the right price. As described in section 6.2.3.7.1, leased DAS
tend to flow from the SNE/MA areas to the GOM/GB areas, presumably because opportunities to
fish for groundfish in those areas are limited so permit holders are looking for an opportunity to
profit from the DAS. The same dynamic may have influenced the purchase of permits for selfleasing. As a result, it is possible that some permit holders invested heavily in permits with
allocated DAS but little or no landings history for the area owner fishers. PSC options that rely
solely on landings history may devalue these investments should the permit holder choose to join
a sector. If the vessel owner joins a sector that targets a stock in a specific area, PSC share for
other stocks may not be valuable to the sector. If ACE transfers are authorized, some of these
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

678

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Economic Impacts

concerns may be mitigated as a sector may be able to transfer the ACE to other sectors. Permit
holders could also choose not to take such permits into a sector but could leave them in the
common pool and either fish or lease the DAS.

7.5.1.2.3.4

Monitoring and Enforcement

7.5.1.2.3.4.1

Enforcement

This measure clarifies several sector enforcement provisions. Two options were adopted by the
Proposed Action.
Option 2 limits liability to only three categories of offenses (basically offenses related to accurate
reporting of catch). This further limits the liability of permit holders, but also constrains the
ability of NMFS to enforce sector provisions.
Option 3 merely restates the liability of sectors for catch overages and makes it clear every permit
holder is responsible for any overage.

7.5.1.2.3.4.2

Sector Monitoring Requirements

Because of the necessity to accurately monitor sector catch – both landings and discards - this
action adopts changes to sector monitoring requirements. These requirements are phased in over a
three-year period. Initially sector landings will be inflated by an assumed discard rate, but
ultimately the plan is for all sectors to implement an at-sea observer program that is adequate to
monitor sector catches.
Section 7.2.1.2.3.3 discusses the assumed discard rates that may be applied to sector catches. If
the rates are based on the most recent assessment, as is proposed, assumed discards will be based
on a very different management program. By the implementation of this action, the most recent
discard information from an assessment will be based on catches in calendar year 2007 and will
be three years old. Many discards that result from the effort control system are a result of trip
limits. Since sectors are exempt from trip limits, removing this cause for discard should result in
lower discard rates than were previously observed. By using the assumed discard rates from a
different management program, sectors will sacrifice yield and revenues. Additional losses in
revenue could result from the very different stock conditions that were observed in 2007. For
example, GB haddock discards in 2007 were observed at a very high rate due to the tremendous
size and slow growth of the 2003 year class. This rate would be applied in 2010, even though
these same conditions will probably not exist in the fishery. As a result, GB haddock yield could
be sacrificed. Some improvements can be expected if the discard rates are based on actual
observations of vessels in the sector in a more recent time period.
A key economic impact of sectors is that sector members are required to fund the costs for an
enhanced monitoring program. The proposal in this document is that sectors will have to
implement a dockside monitoring program in the first two years of operation, followed by an atsea observer program in the third year. In the first year, dockside monitoring must cover 50
percent of trips, declining to 20 percent of trips in subsequent years. At-sea monitoring levels will
be less than 100 percent of trips. This is an extensive expansion of the Amendment 13
requirement that sectors must accurately monitor and report their catch, and the costs described
below can be viewed as a comparison to the No Action alternative.
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

679

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Economic Impacts

The Council was provided two reports that examined the issues and costs associated with the
proposed monitoring programs (Turris and McElderry 2008; McElderry and Turris 2008). With
respect to costs, McElderry and Turris (2008) provided the estimates shown in Table 249. There
are a number of assumptions that need to be noted when reviewing this table:
•
•
•
•

The authors assumed that sectors would form with 50 percent of the active fleet and
would harvest 80 percent of the available ACE;
The number of sea days and trips is based on recent averages and does not take into
account higher catch rates or other efficiencies that may be obtained under sector
provisions;
The cost estimates assume that all at-sea observer costs are borne by sectors
Baseline data collection is included as an additional cost for sectors and common
pool vessels even though many of these elements are collected through existing data
systems.

At the high end, the total estimated costs to sector vessels for 100 percent dockside and at-sea
monitoring is $11.1 million, or about $35,700 per vessel. The low end estimate is $8.7 million, or
about $27,000 per vessel. These costs are probably high estimates. As described in section
7.2.1.2.3, the sea days for trawl vessels fishing in sectors will likely be less than recent
observations because of the increased efficiencies for sectors. A rough estimate is that the sea
days will be 60 percent of current values. A second factor that will reduce at-sea observer costs is
the expectation that the NMFS federal observer program will continue at something approaching
current levels. In recent years sea days observing groundfish trips have been on the order of 2,500
– 3,500 sea days. There is no anticipated requirement that sector observer programs will replace
all of these sea days. When these two factors are taken into account, the number of needed at-sea
days changes from 28,000 estimated by McElderry and Turris (2008) to about 14,000 days. If the
levels of at-sea observer and electronic monitoring coverage remain in the same proportion as
shown in Table 249 then at-sea observer costs could be half those estimated in the report and
would average about $13,500 to $17,800 per vessel. Dockside monitoring costs would also be
less than the report estimated, since the authors assume that the number of trips is roughly half the
number of sea days. Cutting sea days by 60 percent should result in a similar reduction in
dockside costs; in addition, when coverage declines to 20 percent, dockside costs should be 40
percent of the report’s lowest estimate, or roughly $160,000 to $240,000.
One factor that could result in costs higher than these estimates is that McElderry and Turris
(2008) assume that electronic monitoring will replace the need for at-sea observers on a large
number of days. If this equipment is not adopted in this fishery, the number of days requiring atsea observer coverage will increase and costs will be higher than they estimated.
The costs associated with the proposed revisions are clearly higher than those of No Action.
Some of these costs may be deferred or avoided if funding is provided from other sources. NMFS
announced that monitoring costs for sectors will be provided by the agency in FY 2010. It is
unclear if this funding will remain available in future years. If it does, this will reduce sector
operating costs but shifts the burden to taxpayers. If funding is not available in FY 2011, then the
difficult decision sectors will face is whether the losses in yield caused by using an assumed
discard rate are large enough to promote early adoption of an at-sea observer program funded at
sector cost. By FY 2012, sectors will be required to provide an at-sea monitoring program; at that
time, the issue facing vessel owners is whether sector operations can support the monitoring
program expense.
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

680

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Economic Impacts

Table 249 –Sector monitoring cost estimates from McElderry and Turris (2008b)

7.5.1.2.3.5

Transfer of ACE

Two options are being considered which allow ACE to either be transferred between sectors or
between time periods.
The Proposed Action (Option 2) allows sectors to carry forward a portion of unused ACE into the
following fishing year and also allows transfers of ACE between sectors. Up to ten percent of a
stock’s ACE can be carried forward into the next fishing year. This reduces the risk that a sector
will sacrifice yield in any given year the full ACE is not harvested as a limited opportunity exists
for the sector to harvest the underage in the subsequent year. Similar provisions are common in
fisheries that are managed through catch shares. In concept, allowing ACE carry-forwards are
similar to the DAS provision that allows DAS vessels to carry-forward a percentage of the DAS
allocation if not used.
Option 2 also allows sectors to transfer ACE to other sectors, or to acquire ACE. This provision
will make for more efficient sector operations in several ways. First, if sectors are allocated ACE
for stocks they cannot catch, they can transfer that ACE to other sectors and receive
compensation for the ACE. The reverse is also true: they can acquire ACE from other sectors if
there are stocks that they wish to target, or that are caught incidentally while targeting other
stocks, and for which they did not receive ACE. Second, in those instances that the catch of a
stock may result in a premature closing of the sector’s fishery, this provision provides an
opportunity for the sector to acquire additional ACE to allow them to keep fishing. Finally, this
provision provides limited opportunities for quota balancing at the end of the fishing year, so that
sectors may be able to avoid losing ACE in the following year should they inadvertently exceed
an assigned ACE.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

681

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Economic Impacts

Sanchirico et al (2006) reviewed catch share systems in Iceland, New Zealand, Canada, and
Australia for their approaches to quota balancing. While the exact mechanisms differed, they
found most systems allowed for both the transfer of ACE or quota during the year, retrospective
balancing by allowing transfers after the end of the year for a fixed period. Some systems also
allowed carry-forward provisions for unused quota. The authors said “We find that a combination
of incentives to match catches with leasing quota and limits on the level each mechanism can be
used provides sufficient flexibility to the quota owner without fishery managers incurring
excessive levels of overexploitation risk.” They noted that carefully designed system can increase
the ability of fishermen to react when allocated ACE is not aligned with catch rates.
These provisions do impose costs on sectors that wish to take advantage of them. They must
search for available ACE or customers for ACE they wish to transfer. Sectors acquiring ACE will
probably compensate the acquiring sector either by paying a fee or through an exchange of ACE
of another stock. These costs will only be incurred if the sector chooses to participate, and
presumably they will only do so if the exchange provides benefits to the sector. In order to make
these provisions work, NMFS will withhold part of a sectors’ ACE at the beginning of the fishing
year to account for any overages or transfers. This could limit opportunities of sectors to fish at
the beginning of the year.

7.5.1.2.3.6

Sector Participation in Special Management Programs

Options being considered guide sector participation in several special management programs,
including the Eastern U.S./Canada Haddock SAP and the CAII Yellowtail Flounder SAP. Since
sectors will not be required to use groundfish DAS, the primary benefits of these two SAPS is
that they provide access to year-round closed areas. Catch rates in the areas may be higher,
increasing profitability of sector trips. The specification of access rules provides an opportunity
for sectors to increase revenues by taking advantage of these programs.

7.5.1.2.4 Reporting Requirements
This alternative would require daily reporting of any vessel that declares into more than one of
four designated areas on a given trip. The designation must be made at the beginning of a trip.
Vessels that declare only one area would not have to file a daily landing report, but would lose
the flexibility to fish elsewhere if the conditions warranted. Vessels declaring into more than one
area would be able to fish in any area but would have the added burden of daily reporting. With
the exception of reporting area 2 (the inshore Georges Bank corresponding to statistical area 521)
the reporting areas are large. This means that many vessels will not be subject to daily reporting.
Most affected would be vessels that typically fish in statistical area 521 or in close proximity to it.
Filing these reports via VMS incurs costs to the vessel owner that would not be incurred under
the No Action alternative. Depending on the specific VMS vendor and contract used by the
vessel, these additional costs may or may not be included in the service package. Per character
costs are on the order of $0.04 for each character submitted. More detailed cost estimates will be
included in the PRA submission for this action.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

682

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Economic Impacts

7.5.1.2.5 Allocation of Groundfish to the Commercial and Recreational
Groundfish Fisheries
The Proposed Action would make an explicit allocation between commercial and recreational
user groups for stocks where the ACL was not fully harvested and where the recreational catches
exceeded 5% of total catch. Based on available data these two criteria would be met for only
GOM cod and for GOM haddock. The resulting ACL would depend on the selected years used to
calculate commercial and recreational shares. The economic impacts of the proposed option are
difficult to assess. For this reason, a qualitative assessment is offered below.
The proposal to create a specific allocation of groundfish for the recreational and commercial
components of the groundfish fishery may prove to constrain catches of each of those user
groups. The economic impacts, when compared to No Action, depend in larger measure on which
time period is used to determine the allocations. If the period used is FY 1996 – 2006, the share
for the commercial component is larger than if the period used is FY 2001 – 2006. Obviously, the
reverse is true for the recreational fishery. Choosing the longer period means that recreational
fishing harvest will need to be reduced when compared to recent activity, resulting in a decline in
benefits (both monetary and otherwise) for this component when compared to No Action.
The economic impacts on the recreational groundfish fishery will depend on the likelihood that
recreational catches will trigger accountability measures and on the nature of the accountability
measures themselves. Given a set of management measures, the likelihood that an AM would be
triggered would be lower the larger the ACL. Thus, economic benefits to the recreational fishery
would be largest if the years selected for calculating the share are 2001-2006. These years would
result in the largest recreational share which would also mean a higher ACL and a lower
probability that accountability measures would be needed.
One advantage to choosing an allocation period – regardless which specific period is chosen – is
that each component can be individually evaluated for compliance with catch limits. If a
component exceeds its catch limit, appropriate measures can be introduced to control catch with
less likelihood that the other component will also be subject to more restrictive measures. A
disadvantage is that if a component does not catch its allocation the only benefit is the
contribution of the uncaught catch to rebuilding as there are no provisions to transfer the
uncaught catch between components. This would be difficult in any case because of the delays in
catch reporting for recreational fishermen.

7.5.1.2.6 Changes to the DAS Transfer and DAS Leasing Programs
The Proposed Action would change or eliminate the conservation tax in the DAS transfer
program either on a permanent basis or through a window of opportunity. It also eliminates the
cap on the number of DAS that can be leased by a permit, and allows permits in the CPH
category to participate in the DAS leasing program.
To date, relatively few vessels have participated in the DAS transfer program even though the
conservation tax on transfers was reduced in Framework 40B while other provisions of the DAS
transfer program were further modified in Framework 42 to make the transfer program more
attractive. Neither of these actions has been successful in promoting the desired effect of
increased consolidation in the groundfish fishery. The reasons for the lack of participation in the
DAS transfer program are uncertain, but they may be tied into the design of the leasing program.
Even with the proposed changes in the transfer program vessel owners may still be better off by
purchasing an additional vessel with a groundfish permit outright rather than going through the
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

683

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Economic Impacts

DAS transfer program. Under existing circumstances the vessel owner would be able to lease the
acquired vessel’s DAS to himself/herself and would have the added advantage of retaining all
permits on each vessel. Under the DAS transfer program the vessel owner would have to pay the
DAS transfer tax and would at least have to surrender any redundant permits. Changing or
eliminating the conservation tax for DAS transfer would improve the financial gain to the owner,
but may not be sufficient to offset the financial loss associated with having to give up permits.
Note that this financial loss may be in terms of business equity rather than a loss in current fishing
income or profitability since the value of retaining two vessels with a suite of permits may be
larger than the value of a single vessel with the same number of DAS but fewer permits.
Removing the cap on the number of DAS a permit can lease may make fishing businesses more
profitable. In some cases, the existing cap means a business owner may have to operate two
vessels to fish the number of DAS desired. By removing the cap, one vessel can fish all of those
DAS, reducing the fixed costs of maintaining two vessels.
Allowing CPH permits to participate in the leasing program may also reduce costs. It reduces the
need for vessel owners to place the permit on a skiff in order to lease DAS, and may slightly
increase the pool of available DAS for the leasing market.

7.5.1.2.7 Special Management Programs
The Proposed Action would revise the conditions for operating in the Closed Area I Hook Gear
Haddock SAP and the closed Area II Yellowtail Flounder SAP. The Proposed Action would
reauthorize the Eastern U.S./Canada Haddock SAP without making any changes. The changes to
Closed Area I Hook Gear Haddock SAP would afford participating vessels greater fishing
opportunities subject to the overall TAC for the SAP. The SAP season would be extended and the
authorized area would be significantly increased. Additionally, the provision dividing the season
and the TAC between sector and non-sector vessels would be removed. These changes would
provide greater access to the SAP among sector and non-sector vessels alike. The overall TAC
would still limit the total economic gain and potential removals from the SAP but since the TAC
had not been reached in the past these changes increase the likelihood that the full benefit from
the SAP will be realized.
The revisions to the Closed Area II Yellowtail SAP would provide additional opportunities to
target haddock provided the Eastern GB Haddock TAC has not been reached. In order to
participate in the revised SAP vessels must use specified gears designed to reduce bycatch of
yellowtail flounder. Given its distance from shore vessels able to take advantage of this economic
opportunity will be limited to larger vessels.

7.5.1.2.7.1

Closed Area I Hook Gear Haddock SAP Revisions

As proposed, the extension of the season and expansion of the area for the CA I Hook Gear
Haddock SAP would be expected to increase landings and revenues of GB haddock when
compared to the No Action alternative. Recent TACs in this SAP have ranged from 5 to 7 million
pounds, while the maximum landings from this SAP have been just over 1 million pounds. The
expanded SAP should result in landing a larger proportion of the TAC. There is also some
evidence that haddock catch rates may be higher during summer months where the SAP is
currently closed. Allowing fishing at these times may reduce costs to fishing vessels and improve
profitability. These impacts will only benefit vessels that use longline gear. Many of these vessels

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

684

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Economic Impacts

are likely to be homeported on Cape Cod, and those communities would benefit most from this
measure.
The proposed changes to this SAP also remove a provision whereby the SAP is open at different
periods for the sector and non-sector vessels. This may create a possibility of conflicts between
fishermen as the number of vessels fishing in the area at any one time may increase. It may create
some elements of a derby fishery for non-sector vessels as they compete for the catch before the
season is closed. These derby effects are not likely to be substantial given the size of the available
TAC.

7.5.1.2.7.2

Eastern U.S./Canada Haddock SAP

Extending this SAP provides additional opportunities to harvest GB haddock and should increase
revenues for the fishery when compared to the No Action alternative that allows the SAP to
expire. This may become more important under the effort restrictions that are being considered in
this action. Allowing the use of six-inch square mesh, coupled with a reduction in the minimum
size of haddock to 18 inches, should also increase the efficiency of the vessels fishing in this
SAP. There are additional costs, however - the required trawl gear is estimated to cost $13,000.
Some vessels may already have this gear because they may have participated in the program in
the past.

7.5.1.2.7.3

Closed Area II Yellowtail Flounder SAP Revisions

The proposed revisions to this SAP create an opportunity for the SAP to be open to target GB
haddock even if the SAP is not open to target yellowtail flounder. When compared to No Action,
these changes would be expected to increase revenues for the fishery, primarily through increased
haddock landings. There will be some costs incurred to participate in this SAP as specific gear is
required but these costs are likely to be incurred anyway as the vessels that fish in this SAP
probably have obtained the gear already to fish in the Eastern U.S./Canada Haddock SAP.

7.5.1.2.7.4

SNE/MA Winter Flounder SAP

Amendment 13 adopted a SAP for SNE/MA winter flounder that allowed landing up to 200
pounds of winter flounder without using a DAS. All portions of the trip must take place west of
72-30W, fluke on board must equal or exceed the winter flounder, and there are a number of
administrative requirements. This action proposes to eliminate this SAP to reduce fishing
mortality on winter flounder. This will reduce revenues for vessels that participated in the SAP.
These revenue losses may not be reflected in the CAM analysis for the other effort controls.
While participation in the SAP requires a letter of authorization, SAP trips are not specifically
identified in the databases. To approximate the extent of participation in this program and the
revenues that would be foregone, the area-allocated dealer database maintained by the NEFSC
was queried for trips landing 200 pounds or less of winter flounder, fishing in SA 612, 613, 614,
615, 616, and 621), and not landing yellowtail flounder (vessels were prohibited from landing
other groundfish in this SAP). Results are shown in Table 250. The number of trips that meet the
criteria increased from 667 in CY 2003 (before the SAP was authorized) to 1,016 in CY 2006
before declining to 918 in CY 2007. Winter flounder accounted for between 3 and 7 percent of
the landings on these trips, by weight, and between 4 and 10 percent of the trip revenues. Winter
flounder revenues ranged from $51,048 in CY 2003 (before the program was adopted) to
$157,076 in CY 2007. The ports landing the most winter flounder on these trips were Belford, NJ,
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

685

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Economic Impacts

Pt. Pleasant, NJ, Hampton Bay, NY, and Freeport, NY. Note some of these trips may have been
fishing on a DAS and were not participating in the program, as the trips were not matched to the
DAS database.
Based on these data, it is likely that the revenue losses from this change will not exceed $200,000
per year and are likely to be closer to $150,000. This is because not all of the trips identified here
are likely to be SAP trips, since some trips in 2003 – before the SAP was implemented – met the
criteria used to select the trips. The 2003 data may represent the level of trips using DAS that
landed small amounts of winter flounder. If No Action is selected, these revenues would still be
earned by the fishermen that exercise the option to use this SAP.
A possible response to this measure would be for the vessel to use a groundfish DAS and land the
catch. In this case the losses would be any opportunities lost to lease those DAS to other vessels
or to use them to target groundfish at other times of the year. Since several alternatives in this
action propose to prohibit landing SNE/MA winter flounder, this option is unlikely to be
available.
Table 250 – Landings and revenues on trips consistent with SNE/MA Winter Flounder SAP
requirement
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Trips
667
865
838
1,016
918
Pounds WFL
42,397
57,585
48,107
74,144
79,223
Revenues, WFL
51,048
77,535
75,878
142,057
157,076
Total Revenues
896,443 1,417,019 1,854,208 2,255,053 1,530,293
% WFL
6%
5%
4%
6%
10%
Total pounds
1,135,386 1,445,618 1,528,188 1,653,117 1,161,960
% WFL
4%
4%
3%
4%
7%

7.5.1.2.7.5

Category B DAS (Regular) Program

The proposed changes to the Category B (regular) DAS program are likely to reduce fishing
vessel revenues when compared to the No Action alternative. The reason is that the changes will
no longer allow vessels to target pollock in this program and as shown in section 6.2.3.5 pollock
has become an important component of the catches in this program. Mitigating this loss in
revenue to some extent may the proposal to allow the use of a six-inch cod end when targeting
haddock using selective trawl gear. It is not clear whether this change will increase haddock
revenues sufficiently to counter-act the loss in pollock revenues.

7.5.1.2.8 Periodic Adjustment Process
The changes proposed in this measure are administrative in nature and are not expected to have
any economic impacts when compared to the No Action alternative.

7.5.1.2.9 Simultaneous Possession of a Limited Access Multispecies and
Scallop Permit
The Proposed Action (Option 2) allows a vessel to hold limited access permits in both the scallop
and multispecies fisheries. Both scallops and groundfish vessels are regulated by DAS. As
allocated DAS have contracted in both fisheries vessel owners find themselves with idle capacity.
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

686

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Economic Impacts

This alternative would enable vessels owners to make more efficient use of existing capital by
allowing limited access scallop permit holders to acquire a limited access multispecies permit.
From the perspective of the individual scallop permit holder acquisition of a multispecies permit
would afford greater flexibility in the use of their vessel which should result in higher
profitability. When compared to No Action, this alternative would also provide opportunities to
shed redundant fishing capital resulting in a reduction in fishing capacity and the economic costs
of an overcapitalized fishing fleet.
These economic gains would accrue to the Northeast region fishing fleet as a whole. However,
some distributive effects may be anticipated. That is, this alternative could change the distribution
of groundfish activity as well as the competitive position of groundfish vessels. The scallop
fishery and the vessels engaged in the fishery are predominately located in Southern New
England and Mid-Atlantic ports. As these vessels acquire groundfish permits it seems likely that
groundfish fishing activity would not stray too far from their existing base of operations
suggesting a probable concentration of effort on Georges Bank and Southern New England
stocks. The extent of any change in the distribution of effort would depend on whether the scallop
permit holders acquire groundfish permits that had historically fished in these areas or had fished
in the Gulf of Maine.
Compared to the groundfish fishery the scallop fishery has experienced substantial increases in
gross revenues. Even as fuel costs have increased for both fleets the difference in revenue
generation in the scallop fishery suggests that the scallop fishery is more profitable than the
groundfish fishery. This means that scallop permit holders are likely to have greater access to
capital enabling them to out-compete groundfish permit holders that may also be looking to
acquire additional vessels. Greater access to capital may also have some effects on the DAS
leasing market as scallop permit holders would be better able to subsidize their groundfish fishing
effort with scallop revenues.
There is a widespread belief that that vessel replacement restrictions will limit the number of
limited access scallop permits that can be combined with limited access multispecies permits.
Vessel replacement restrictions require that replacement vessels must be of a similar size, or
smaller, than the baseline characteristics of the permit. The replacement vessel length, gross
tonnage (GRT), and net tonnage (NT) must not be more than ten percent larger than the baseline
characteristics, and the vessel horsepower (VHP) must not be more than twenty percent larger.
There is a widespread belief that that vessel replacement restrictions will limit the number of
limited access scallop permits that can be combined with limited access multispecies permits.
This hypothesis was examined.
First, using multispecies and scallop limited access permits for FY 2006, the number of scallop
permits that were a match for each multispecies permit was determined. This was done without
regard to whether an individual scallop permit matches with more than one multispecies permit.
The results can be viewed as an indication of how broad the market is for each multispecies
permit, without regard to whether the permit holder is willing or able to acquire the scallop
permit. A similar analysis was done in the opposite direction – the number of multispecies
permits that are a match for each scallop permit were determined. In order to summarize the
results, the permits were placed into quintiles of vessel horsepower groups. The analysis
described did not use permits in the confirmation of permit history category.
For multispecies vessels, the results are shown in Table 251. For multispecies vessels in the four
lower horsepower quintiles, each vessel has at least 50 possible scallop permit matches. It is only
the highest horsepower quintile that only eight vessels do not match with any scallop permit.
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

687

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Economic Impacts

Scallop vessel results are shown in Table 252. Scallop permits in the two lowest quintiles match
with at least 25 groundfish permits. As scallop vessels increase in horsepower, the number of
matches declines, but there are only two scallop permits that do not appear to match with any
groundfish permits.
Table 251 – Number of scallop permits that match multispecies permits of a given horsepower group
Number of Multispecies Permits in VHP Groups
Number of Matching Scallop Permits 0 - 251 251- 350 351 - 440 441 to 670 Over 671
0
0
0
0
0
8
>0-5
0
0
0
0
7
> 5 - 10
0
0
0
0
3
> 10 - 30
0
0
0
0
25
> 30 - 50
0
0
0
2
13
> 50 - 100
0
0
1
12
49
> 100 - 150
0
0
4
37
43
> 150 - 200
0
3
29
109
11
> 200 - 250
1
13
239
73
0
> 250 - 300
458
374
68
0
0
Over 300
0
0
0
0
0
Total
459
390
341
233
159
Table 252 - Number of multispecies permits that match scallop permits of a given horsepower group
Number of Scallop Permits in VHP Groups
Number of Matching Mults Permits 0 - 524 524 - 735 735 - 900 900 - 1180 1180 and over
0
0
0
1
0
1
> 0 to 5
0
0
0
0
11
> 5 to 10
0
0
1
2
8
> 10 to 25
0
0
3
21
10
> 25 to 50
0
2
20
12
0
> 50 to 100
2
12
42
9
0
> 100 to 200
24
40
6
0
0
> 200 to 300
31
8
0
0
0
> 300 to 400
20
0
0
0
0
> 400 to 500
4
0
0
0
0
Over 500
6
0
0
0
0
Total
87
62
73
44
30

These results suggest that almost all scallop and multispecies permits could acquire a permit in
the other fishery that meets meet the vessel replacement criteria. As noted before, this does not
take into account that some of these matches may represent permits that match up with the same
permit. In addition, there may be some permits that only match with a few specific permits – if
those permits have already been acquired by other permits, the number of matches of possible
matches shown here may overstate the actual liquidity of the permit market. In order to examine
this issue, a simple simulation model was developed for a permit market. In this model, scallop
and multispecies permits were placed in a random order. Each scallop permit was consecutively
matched with multispecies permits until a match was found. As matches were found, the
multispecies permit was removed from the pool of possible permits and the next scallop permit
was compared to multispecies permits. Since order matters, after all scallop permits were
examined the results were summarized, permit order was randomized, and the same process was
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

688

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Economic Impacts

repeated fifty times. Each iteration thus represents one specific order of matching scallop permits
to multispecies permits. The only criteria for determining whether a match existed were vessel
characteristics – there was no attempt to incorporate financial considerations. Results were
summarized not only to determine the number of matches (again, by scallop vessel horsepower
group), but to examine how permit might move between principal port states. There were a total
of 284 scallop permits in the model; confirmation of permit history permits and twelve permits
with missing characteristic information were not included.
For the fifty iterations, the average number of scallop permits that successfully matched with a
multispecies permit was 224 permits. Table 253 shows that for the three smallest scallop
horsepower groups it is probable that all the scallop permits will be able to match with a
multispecies permit. More than half the permits in the second largest group should be able to
match with a groundfish permit. Only in the largest group is it likely that half or less of the
permits will be able to match with a suitable groundfish permit.
Table 253 – Results of simulation matching scallop permits to multispecies permits based on permit
baseline characteristics
Number of Iterations by Scallop HP Group
Number of Matches
0 - 524 524 - 735 735 - 900
900 - 1180 1180 and over
0
0
0
0
0
0
>0-5
0
0
0
0
0
> 5 - 10
0
0
0
0
0
> 10 - 15
0
0
0
0
0
> 15 - 20
0
0
0
0
3
> 20 - 25
0
0
0
0
35
> 25 - 30
0
0
0
0
12
> 30 - 35
0
0
0
0
0
> 35 - 40
0
0
0
0
0
> 40 - 45
0
0
0
1
0
> 45 - 50
50
50
39
10
0
More
0
0
11
39
0
Total Permits in VHP Category
50
49
53
70
62

Based on principal port state, the simulation suggests that the major groundfish principal port
states – Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island – are likely to experience a net
loss in the number of groundfish permits through these exchanges, as will New York.
Connecticut, New Jersey, and Virginia could see a net increase in the number of groundfish
permits (Table 254).
Table 254 – Simulation model results for changes in the number of multispecies permits by principal
port state
Principal Port State Mults. Lost Mults. Gained Average Net Change
ME
25
3
-23
NH
2
0
-2
MA
63
40
-23
RI
31
3
-29
CT
4
5
1
NY
14
0
-14
NJ
16
56
40
VA
41
41

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

689

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Economic Impacts

7.5.1.2.10

Catch History

This measure prevents catch history from accruing after implementation of Amendment 16.
Adopting this provision may facilitate ACE transfers both within and between sectors. Permit
holders expressed concerns that without this statement of Council intent they would be unwilling
to transfer ACE. This is because of the possibility that a future allocation system could be
adopted that would use a time period after implementation of Amendment 16 to allocate the
resource. The current policy is that landings history accrues to the vessel that lands the catch, so if
a permit holder or sector transfers ACE it would run the risk of disadvantaging itself in any future
allocation process. This concern might inhibit transfers, reducing the benefits expected from
sectors, increasing costs as more vessels continue fishing, and making the transfer market
inefficient. By stating this policy, these problems are reduced. It is always possible a future
Council could overturn this decision but this would require another action subject to public
comment and debate.
For recreational vessels, the impacts are not as clear. Since the policy as adopted applies to all
components of the fishery, the recreational component will not accrue history either. Since
recreational access to some stocks may be hampered due to low stock sizes (e.g. SNE/MA winter
flounder), the result is that any future allocation may not consider the benefits to recreational
fishermen of stock rebuilding. This could result in reduced economic benefits for this component
of the fishery; these impacts would need to be considered in any future allocation decision.

7.5.1.3

Measures to Meet Mortality Objectives

7.5.1.3.1 Commercial Fishery Management Measures
Amendment 16 would make a number of changes to existing regulations affecting qualification
criteria and sector operations. These changes are expected to encourage much larger participation
in sectors. In addition to the two sectors that currently exist, a total of 17 new sectors have been
proposed. Vessel owners that do not choose to join a sector would be subject to effort controls. At
this time, the number of vessels that may elect to remain under an effort control program and how
many will join sectors is not known. If preliminary sector rosters submitted during 2008 are any
indication, the number of sector participants could exceed two-thirds of the number of vessels
with a category A DAS allocation and would account for about 80% of the federal commercial
fishery ACL. Whether the number of participating vessel owners will be higher or lower is
speculative especially since a number of key decisions have yet to be made that would affect
whether any given vessel owner may choose to join a sector or remain in the common pool. This
circumstance adds an additional layer of uncertainty to assessment of economic impacts of the
effort control alternatives since the need for and effectiveness of any given measure may be
sensitive to which vessels will remain in the common pool. Nevertheless, for purpose of analysis
the effort control alternatives were modeled as if all vessel owners chose to remain in the
common pool.
With some modifications, the economic impacts of the effort control alternatives were evaluated
using methods similar to that used for Amendment 13 and subsequent management actions.
Specifically, the closed area model (CAM) was modified to include revenues from nongroundfish species landed on groundfish trips. This means that changes in groundfish trip
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

690

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Economic Impacts

revenues were directly estimated within the CAM and did not have to be indirectly estimated as
was the case for Amendment 13 and most recently for FW42. Since the CAM does not include
non-groundfish trips, revenues from these trips still had to be indirectly estimated. The change in
total fishing revenue was estimated by first calculating average groundfish trip and nongroundfish trip revenue from dealer data during FY 2005 – FY 2007 for each vessel included in
the CAM. Second, groundfish trip revenue for a given alternative was calculated by applying the
proportional change in groundfish trip revenue from the CAM to the FY 2005 – FY 2007
baseline. Third, total fishing revenue for the alternative was calculated by summing the result
from the second step and FY 2005 – FY 2007 average revenue from non-groundfish trips. Last,
the proportional change in total fishing revenue for each alternative was calculated by subtracting
baseline total revenue for the alternative from baseline total revenue then dividing by baseline
total revenue. A negative change is interpreted as a proportional reduction in total revenue
whereas a positive change is indicative of an increase in total fishing revenue. This estimation
procedure may overestimate the economic impacts of regulatory action. That is, in the Report to
Congress on the economic impacts of FW42, realized fishing revenue upon implementation of
A13 were compared to estimated impacts in the FSEIS. In most cases realized revenues were
higher than predicted because of changes in ex-vessel prices and non-modeled changes in fishing
strategies particularly in revenues received from non-groundfish species.
The effort control alternatives include no action as well as three alternatives two of which include
restricted gear areas. The restricted gear areas would provide some fishing opportunities in areas
that might otherwise be closed or subject to differential DAS. The biological and economic
effects of these restricted gear areas were not modeled within the CAM. The realized
effectiveness of these gears is uncertain which also compromises the reliability of comparisons
across effort control alternatives.
The following analyses report the impacts of the alternatives on revenues for a subset of vessels
in the groundfish fishery. Average groundfish trip revenue for all limited access permit holders
was $114 million during FY 2005 – FY 2007 and average total revenue was $158 million.
Average FY 2005 – FY 2007 groundfish trip revenues for the vessels included in the analysis was
$101 million during FY 2005 to FY 2007 and average total revenue was $148.5 million. These
revenues represent 88% and 94% respectively of total FY 2005-FY 2007 average revenue on
groundfish trips and revenue from all trips by all limited access permit holders. Because such a
high proportion of revenues are accounted for by the vessels in the analysis, the results are
believed representative of the impacts on the fleet as a whole.

7.5.1.3.1.1 Economic Impacts of the Proposed Action: Alternative 3a:
Differential DAS
Alternative 3a would achieve the conservation objectives of the Proposed Action using
differential DAS as the primary management measure. This alternative would also include the
default 18% reduction in DAS as well as the suite of modified trip limits described previously.
Aggregate Impacts
Average groundfish trip revenue for the vessels included in the analysis was $101 million during
FY 2005 to FY 2007 and average total revenue was $158 million. Under Alternative 3a the
estimated groundfish trip revenue would decline by 15% to $86 million and total fishing revenue
would decline by 10% to $142 million (Table 255). Among states the estimated change in
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

691

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Economic Impacts

groundfish trip revenue was highest in New York (-28.3%) but was at least 20% in Connecticut,
New Jersey, and Rhode Island. The change in groundfish trip revenue was -9% in Maine while
groundfish trip revenue was estimated to decline by more than 18% in New Hampshire and by
14% in Massachusetts.
Table 255 - Alternative 3a Change in Groundfish Trip and Total Trip Revenue by Home Port State
State
2005-2007
Estimated
Change in
2005-2007
Estimated
Change in
Average
Total Revenue
Total
Average
Groundfish Groundfish
Total
Revenue
Groundfish
Trip
Trip
Revenue
Trip Revenue
Revenue
Revenue
CT
$471,853
$420,017
-11.0%
$234,954
$183,118
-22.1%
MA
$76,335,101
$67,581,287
-11.5%
$61,075,061 $52,321,247
-14.3%
ME
$18,692,050
$17,178,266
-8.1%
$16,887,629 $15,373,845
-9.0%
NH
$5,260,523
$4,448,295
-15.4%
$4,381,575
$3,569,348
-18.5%
NJ
$6,897,309
$6,463,969
-6.3%
$1,874,151
$1,440,811
-23.1%
NY
$14,307,651
$13,165,671
-8.0%
$4,035,033
$2,893,053
-28.3%
RI
$31,466,190
$28,854,662
-8.3%
$11,430,282
$8,818,754
-22.8%
Other
$4,121,225
$4,008,864
-2.7%
$1,292,992
$1,180,630
-8.7%
Total
$157,551,903
$142,121,030
-9.8%
$101,211,678 $85,780,806
-15.2%

Vessel-Level Impacts
A total of 58 vessels were estimated to obtain at least some modest improvement in groundfish
trip income due to the removal of the differential DAS counting areas and higher trip limits for
GOM and GB cod. Almost all of these vessels were either from Maine (15), Massachusetts (35),
or New Hampshire (8). The average increase in fishing revenue for these vessels was 8%; shown
as a -8% in Table 1. Due to the small number of vessels that may experience improved fishing
revenue the remaining discussion will focus on the vessels that are expected to be adversely
affected by the Proposed Action.
Alternative 3a would have an adverse impact on 451 of the 509 vessels included in the analysis.
The estimated adverse impact on fishing revenue for vessels up to the 20th percentile averaged 2%
(Table 256). Above the 20th percentile, the estimated average adverse impact ranged from 8%
between the 20th percentile and the median to 36% for vessels above the 80th percentile.
Table 256 - Alternative 3a Estimated Impact and Number of Affected Vessels by Impact Category
Impact Category
Number of
Average Adverse
Vessels
Impact
No Impact
Up to 20th Percentile
20th Percentile to Median
Median to 80th Percentile
Above 80th Percentile

58
91
135
135
90

-8%
2%
8%
15%
36%

Under Alternative 3a the 24 hour clock would have progressively larger adverse impacts based on
vessel size at intervals above the 20th percentile. For example, the average impact on small
vessels between the 20th percentile and the median was estimated to be 11% as compared to 7%
for medium and 6% for large vessels (Table 257). This differential effect is more pronounced
among vessels above the median. At the 80th percentile the estimated average adverse impact on

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

692

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Economic Impacts

small vessels was 42% while the adverse on medium and large vessels was estimated to be 32%
and 19%, respectively.
Table 257 - Alternative 3a Estimated Adverse Impact and Affected Vessels by Vessel Length Class
Less than 50 feet
50 to 70 feet
Over 70 feet
Impact Category
Number Average Number Average Number Average
of
Adverse
of
Adverse
of
Adverse
Vessels Impact Vessels
Impact
Vessels Impact
Up to 20th Percentile
20th Percentile to Median
Median to 80th Percentile
Above 80th Percentile

41
60
60
40

2%
11%
23%
42%

26
38
38
25

2%
7%
14%
32%

25
37
37
24

2%
6%
10%
19%

Among primary gears the relative distribution of adverse impact on total revenue varied. Since
hook gear tend to have a high dependence on cod for both groundfish and total fishing revenue,
the impact on hook gear was substantially lower than other gears at all percentiles primarily due
to the higher trip limit for cod (Table 258). Among vessels using either gillnet or trawl gear,
estimated adverse impacts on gillnet gear tended to be higher than that of vessels using trawl
gear. This difference is likely due to the fact that gillnet vessels have proportionally more dayboat
vessels that would be more affected by the 24 hour clock as compared to the proportion of
dayboat vessels using trawl gear.
Table 258 - Alternative 3a Estimated Adverse Impact and Affected Vessels by Primary Gear
Gillnet
Hook
Trawl
Impact Category
Number Average Number Average Number Average
of
Adverse
of
Adverse
of
Adverse
Vessels Impact Vessels Impact Vessels Impact
Up to 20th Percentile
20th Percentile to Median
Median to 80th Percentile
Above 80th Percentile

22
32
32
21

2%
10%
21%
37%

2
1
2
1

0%
1%
1%
2%

68
101
102
67

2%
8%
14%
36%

The estimated impact on vessels from New Hampshire were higher than vessels from other home
port states, at least up to the 80th percentile (Table 259). The estimated average impact on fishing
revenue for New Hampshire vessels was at least twice that of any other home port state up to the
20th percentile (8%) and was at least 60% higher than any other state between the 20th percentile
and the median (15%) and between the median and the 80th percentile (27%). Above the 80th
percentile adverse impacts on total fishing revenue was highest for home port vessels from
Massachusetts (41%) followed by vessels from New Hampshire (37%), and vessels from Rhode
Island and Connecticut (34%).

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

693

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Economic Impacts
Table 259 - Alternative 3a Estimated Adverse Revenue Impacts and Number of Affected Vessels by
Home Port State
Home Port State
Up to 20th
20th Median to
Above 80th
Percentile
Percentile to
80th
Percentile
Median Percentile

MA
ME
NH
NJ - South
NY
RI & CT
MA
ME
NH
NJ
NY
RI & CT

Number of Vessels
44
66
66
11
17
16
6
8
8
7
9
10
10
13
14
15
21
22
Average Adverse Affect on Total Revenue
3.0%
9.0%
17.0%
4.0%
8.0%
13.0%
8.0%
15.0%
27.0%
0.0%
3.0%
7.0%
1.0%
4.0%
13.0%
2.0%
6.0%
14.0%

43
11
5
6
9
14
41.0%
29.0%
37.0%
17.0%
28.0%
34.0%

Vessels with high dependence on groundfish trip revenue may be expected to be more adversely
affected by Alternative 3a than less dependent vessels. This effect is evident as the estimated
average adverse impact of fishing revenue increases with dependence on groundfish trip revenue
(Table 260). For example, the estimated impact on vessels that depend on groundfish trips for less
than 20% of fishing revenue ranged from less than 0.5% up to the 20th percentile to 6% for
vessels above the 80th percentile. By contrast, impacts on vessels that depend on groundfish for at
least 80% of fishing revenue ranged from an average of 6% up to the 20th percentile and 46%
above the 80th percentile.
Table 260 - Alternative 3a Estimated Impacts and Number of Affected Vessels by Dependence on
Groundfish Trip Revenue
Dependence
Up to 20th
20th
Median to
Above 80th
Category
Percentile
Percentile to
80th
Percentile
Median
Percentile

0 to 19%
20 to 39%
40 to 59%
60 to 79%
80 to 100%
0 to 19%
20 to 39%
40 to 59%
60 to 79%
80 to 100%

Number of Vessels
13
18
19
16
23
24
12
17
17
13
18
18
39
58
58
Average Adverse Affect on Total Revenue
0.0%
1.0%
2.0%
2.0%
5.0%
9.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
6.0%
12.0%
21.0%
6.0%
11.0%
24.0%

12
15
11
12
38
6.0%
16.0%
22.0%
32.0%
46.0%

Unlike dependence on groundfish dependence the estimated average impact on total fishing
revenue tended to be larger at lower levels of gross sales (Table 261). This tendency was more
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

694

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Economic Impacts

pronounced at sales intervals below $269 thousand compared to intervals above $269 thousand.
For example, the estimated average adverse impact above the 80th percentile ranged from 48% to
38% for sales intervals of $269 thousand or less, but was 27% and 14% respectively for the two
highest sales intervals. This difference between vessels with comparatively high and low levels of
gross sales is likely to be correlated with vessel size which also displayed an inverse pattern of
increasing adverse impact with vessel size.
Table 261 - Alternative 3a Estimated Adverse Revenue Impacts and Number of Affected Vessels by
Gross Sales Category
Gross Sales Category
Up to 20th
20th
Median to Above 80th
($1,000)
Percentile
Percentile
80th
Percentile
to Median
Percentile

Less than $90 k
$90 k to $159 k
$160k to $269 k
$270 k to $500 k
More then $500 k
Less than $90 k
$90 k to $159 k
$160k to $269 k
$270 k to $500 k
More then $500 k

Number of Vessels
15
22
23
14
17
25
26
16
20
30
30
19
19
28
28
18
21
30
30
20
Average Adverse Affect on Total Revenue
2.0%
10.0%
24.0%
48.0%
1.0%
10.0%
22.0%
43.0%
2.0%
10.0%
19.0%
38.0%
2.0%
7.0%
12.0%
27.0%
2.0%
6.0%
10.0%
14.0%

Among port groups the estimated adverse impacts tended to be largest on vessels with a
Gloucester home port (Table 262). Impacts on the Gloucester port group ranged from 15% for
vessels up to the 20th percentile to revenue losses of 51% for vessels above the 80th percentile.
Among other port groups estimated reductions in fishing revenue above the 80th percentile
exceeded 30% in Other Rhode Island (40%), Mid-Coast Maine (32%), North Shore,
Massachusetts (38%), Point Judith (31%), and the Portsmouth Area port group (37%).

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

695

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Economic Impacts
Table 262 - Alternative 3a Estimated Adverse Revenue Impacts and Number of Affected Vessels by
Port Groups
Up to
20th
Median to Above 80th
20th
Percentile
80th
Percentile
Port Group
Percentile
to Median
Percentile

Cape & Islands
Long Island, NY
Gloucester
Mid-Coast Maine
North Shore, Massachusetts
New Bedford
New Jersey
Other Rhode Island
Point Judith
Portsmouth Area
Scituate - Boston
Portland - So. Maine
Cape & Islands
Long Island, NY
Gloucester
Mid-Coast Maine
North Shore, Massachusetts
New Bedford
New Jersey
Other Rhode Island
Point Judith
Portsmouth Area
Scituate - Boston
Portland - So. Maine

Number of Vessels
5
8
7
5
10
13
14
9
15
22
22
14
6
8
9
5
4
6
6
4
15
22
23
14
7
9
10
6
6
8
9
5
9
13
14
8
6
8
8
5
6
8
8
5
6
8
8
5
Average Adverse Affect on Total Revenue
1.0%
7.0%
13.0%
24.0%
1.0%
4.0%
13.0%
28.0%
5.0%
17.0%
35.0%
51.0%
4.0%
7.0%
12.0%
32.0%
4.0%
10.0%
20.0%
38.0%
3.0%
8.0%
11.0%
16.0%
0.0%
3.0%
7.0%
17.0%
1.0%
4.0%
11.0%
40.0%
3.0%
7.0%
16.0%
31.0%
8.0%
15.0%
27.0%
37.0%
3.0%
9.0%
14.0%
29.0%
4.0%
9.0%
14.0%
29.0%

7.5.1.3.1.2 Analysis of Vessel Break-Even DAS in New England
Groundfish
Evaluation of vessel break-even DAS in the New England groundfish fishery was conducted
using data from several sources. Note that throughout this report break-even DAS are defined as
being the number of Category A DAS needed to cover annual fixed costs. Fixed cost data were
collected from a sample of permit holders surveyed during 2007 and 2008. In each survey year,
cost data for the preceding fiscal year were collected including vessel improvements,
maintenance and repairs, mooring fees, insurance, communication, business travel, business
taxes, professional fees, handling fees, association fees, office expenses, permit renewal fees,
interest on business loans, non-crew labor, vehicles, and miscellaneous expenses. Data on fishing
revenues and days absent were obtained from a combination of dealer and vessel trip reports.
Based on a review of the fixed cost data received during 2007 and 2008 the cost burden varied
widely with some vessels incurring higher costs than others. These costs also depended on the
type of gear used and vessel size. These differences have implications for the minimum number
of DAS that would be needed in order to break-even; i.e. to cover all fixed costs over and above
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

696

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Economic Impacts

operating costs. For this reason break-even DAS were estimated for the three primary gears used
in the groundfish fishery (otter trawl, gillnet, and bottom longline). Limited access permit holders
using these gears were further categorized by vessel size and by high, medium, and low levels of
fixed costs resulting in a total of 21 estimates of break-even DAS based on gear, size, and level of
fixed costs. The fixed cost intervals were based on breaking the distribution of total fixed costs by
vessel into thirds where the first third was assigned to the low fixed costs category, the second
third to medium fixed costs and the last third to high fixed costs. Fixed costs in each interval were
determined by the average of all vessels in each cost category.
The number of DAS needed to break-even was estimated by dividing total fixed costs by the
contribution margin per DAS where the contribution margin is the daily return to the vessel on a
groundfish trip after deducting payments for trip costs and captain and crew. However,
depending on lay system these trip costs may be paid for out of crew and captain share. Given
uncertainty about different lay systems calculation of the contribution margin was simplified by
assuming a 60/40 lay where 60% of gross stock goes to hired captain and crew and 40% goes to
the vessel. Trip costs are paid out of the former while the latter is the daily contribution share.
Daily gross stock on groundfish trips was estimated as the average revenue from all species
landed on trips where groundfish comprised more than 50% of total trip revenue where average
daily revenue was calculated for each gear/size combination.
Estimated break-even DAS where highest for otter trawl vessels more than 75 feet in length that
also had high fixed costs (Table 263). Note that break-even DAS reported in Table 263 are most
appropriate for vessels that fish exclusively for or have high dependence on groundfish for annual
fishing income. For any given gear/size combination break-even DAS go down for vessels with
lower fixed costs. For example, large trawl vessels with high fixed costs were estimated to require
253 DAS to break-even whereas large trawl vessels with low fixed costs would break-even at 55
DAS.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

697

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Economic Impacts
Table 263 - Estimated Break-Even DAS Needed for Full-Time Groundfish Vessels by Level of Fixed
Cost and Gear/Size Combinations.

Gear/Size Combination

Average Fixed
Costs

Gillnet < 45'
Gillnet >= 45'
Longline < 35'
Longline >= 35'
Trawl < 50 '
Trawl >= 50 and < 75
Trawl > 75

$133,890
$151,596
$84,837
$246,109
$104,476
$259,928
$545,486

Gillnet < 45'
Gillnet >= 45'
Longline < 35'
Longline >= 35'
Trawl < 50 '
Trawl >= 50 and < 75
Trawl > 75

$57,449
$70,523
$43,380
$76,755
$48,848
$102,579
$259,389

Gillnet < 45'
Gillnet >= 45'
Longline < 35'
Longline >= 35'
Trawl < 50 '
Trawl >= 50 and < 75
Trawl > 75

$29,287
$39,395
$18,732
$28,949
$24,478
$43,161
$119,762

Average Gross
Contribution
Revenue per Day
Margin
High Fixed Costs
$1,971
$788
$2,449
$980
$2,629
$1,052
$3,234
$1,294
$2,827
$1,131
$3,964
$1,586
$5,400
$2,160
Medium Fixed Costs
$1,971
$788
$2,449
$980
$2,629
$1,052
$3,234
$1,294
$2,827
$1,131
$3,964
$1,586
$5,400
$2,160
Low Fixed Costs
$1,971
$788
$2,449
$980
$2,629
$1,052
$3,234
$1,294
$2,827
$1,131
$3,964
$1,586
$5,400
$2,160

Break-Even
DAS
170
155
81
190
92
164
253
73
72
41
59
43
65
120

Based on the estimates provided in Table 263 an estimate of total DAS needed for limited access
vessels that participate in the groundfish fishery may be obtained by multiplying the break-even
DAS by the number of vessels in each gear/size/fixed cost category. However, as noted above,
the estimated break-even DAS are based on vessels that have high dependence on groundfish
trips for total fishing revenue. To estimate total DAS needs the break-even DAS were prorated to
vessel gear/size categories based on the proportion of groundfish trip revenue to total fishing
revenue for limited access permit holders that participated in the groundfish fishery during FY
2007. During FY 2007 there were a total of 649 vessels that participated in the groundfish fishery
(Table 264). Of these vessels 217 depended on groundfish trip revenues for 20% or less of total
trip income while 191 vessels relied on groundfish trip revenue for more than 80% of total fishing
revenue. Note that for reporting purposes the number of vessels by dependence on groundfish trip
revenue that used either, gillnet or longline gear had to be combined into a single category
because of confidentiality concerns in some dependence categories. These gear/size categories
were retained in the estimate of aggregate break-even DAS.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

698

37
40
18
22
22
27
55

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Economic Impacts
Table 264 - Number of Limited Access Permits by Dependence on Groundfish Trip Revenue for
Total Revenue by Gear/Size Combinations

Gear/Size Combination
Gillnet/Longline
Trawl < 50 '
Trawl >= 50 and < 75
Trawl > 75
Totals

Groundfish Trip Dependence (no. of vessels)
< 20% to
< 40% to
< 60% to
> 80% to
<= 20%
<= 40%
<= 60%
<=80%
100%
88
13
10
17
92
24
15
11
21
46
71
37
23
45
35
34
12
8
29
18
217
77
52
112
191

To simplify estimation procedures proration of break-even DAS was based on the upper bound in
each dependence interval shown in Table 264. For example, break-even DAS for vessels with
20% or less dependence on groundfish trips was estimated by multiplying the break-even DAS by
20%. Break-even DAS for vessels in the 20 to 40% dependence interval were estimated by
multiplying break-even DAS by 40%, and so on. Using the same procedures used to estimate
break-even DAS the number of vessels in each dependence category were further divided into
thirds to reflect differences in break-even DAS among vessels with high, medium, and low levels
of fixed costs.
Total DAS needed for all limited access permit holders that participated in the groundfish fishery
to break-even were estimated to be 34,078 DAS. Almost half of these DAS (16,065) would be
associated with vessels with high dependence on groundfish trip income (Table 265). Total
allocated category A DAS during FY2008 were approximately 51,500 DAS. These allocated days
include base allocations of 44,000 days plus carry over DAS of about 7,500. Thus, at least in
aggregate, during FY2008 there are more than enough total allocated A DAS to meet the breakeven DAS. However, median individual allocation including carry over was 45 DAS and ranged
from a high of 155 DAS to fewer than 10. Thus many vessels cannot break-even on their DAS
allocations alone and rely on the DAS leasing program to acquire the additional DAS needed to
remain profitable.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

699

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Economic Impacts

Table 265 - Estimated Total Break-Even DAS for Limited Access Groundfish Vessels by Dependence
on Groundfish and Gear/Size Combinations and Level of Fixed Costs

Gear/Size Combination

<= 20%

Gillnet/Longline
Trawl < 50 '
Trawl >= 50 and < 75
Trawl > 75
Sub-Total

976
148
775
572
2,471

Gillnet/Longline
Trawl < 50 '
Trawl >= 50 and < 75
Trawl > 75
Sub-Total

418
69
306
272
1,065

Gillnet/Longline
Trawl < 50 '
Trawl >= 50 and < 75
Trawl > 75
Sub-Total
Total Break-Even DAS

215
35
129
126
504
4,040

< 20% to <=
40%

< 40% to <=
60%
High Fixed Costs
295
330
185
203
808
753
404
404
1,691
1,690
Medium Fixed Costs
124
145
86
95
319
297
192
192
721
729
Low Fixed Costs
63
76
43
48
134
125
89
89
329
337
2,741
2,757

< 60% to
<=80%

> 80% to
100%

743
517
1,965
1,951
5,176

5,056
1,415
1,911
1,514
9,896

317
242
776
928
2,263

2,055
662
754
720
4,191

161
121
326
428
1,037
8,475

997
332
317
332
1,979
16,065

Proposed Effort Control Alternatives
The proposed effort control alternatives will next be discussed in the context of the break-even
analysis. As with the design of the measures, it will be assumed that all vessels choose to use
effort controls and no vessels choose to join sectors. The break-even analysis presented was based
on the contribution margin per DAS. The contribution margin is determined by the difference
between revenues and trip costs (in this analysis trip costs include payments to crew and hired
captains). Revenues per DAS were calculated from observed trips where groundfish revenue was
more than 50 percent of the trip revenues. Since the existing management system constrains
revenues per DAS through the use of trip limits for many stocks, as well as other measures that
limit vessel efficiency, the analysis reflects the number of DAS necessary to break-even under the
current regulatory regime – that is, prior to implementation of Amendment 16.
The effort control alternatives under consideration propose substantial changes to the
management system. Not only do all the alternatives propose reductions in allocated DAS, but
they modify trip limits, the way DAS are counted, and impose gear restricted areas. Measures that
promote efficiency and increase revenues per DAS would be expected to reduce the number of
break-even DAS, while those that promote inefficiency or reduce revenues per DAS would
increase the number needed for the fleet to break-even. The proposed changes would be expected
to affect the break-even analysis as follows:
•

Counting DAS in 24-hour increments might increase the number of DAS needed to
break-even if vessels do not change fishing behavior, but this is an unlikely result. This
measure is expected to have the largest effects on fishing behavior for vessels that have
been taking day trips charged less than 24 hours on the DAS clock. These vessels will

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

700

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Economic Impacts

•
•

probably increase trip length enough to maximize revenues for each 24-hour DAS
increment they are charged. If they can increase revenues on these short trips enough to
match the revenues per DAS earned in the past, the contribution margin per DAS may
increase and the number of DAS necessary to break-even will decline.
Increasing trip limits reduces the number of DAS necessary to break-even. Reducing trip
limits or banning possession of stocks that are landed increases the number of DAS
needed.
Impacts of restricted gear areas are difficult to predict. If these areas increase trip costs by
forcing vessels to travel farther to fishing areas, or if they shift vessels into areas with
lower catch rates, they will increase the number of DAS needed to break-even. But if the
areas cause vessels to shift into more productive areas, or relocate to ports that are closer
to the fishing grounds, they may reduce the number of DAS needed to break-even.

Complicating application of the break-even analysis to the effort control alternatives being
considered is that this action proposes changing several measures at once. For a simple example,
consider a vessel making day trips that lands only GOM cod. A change in the GOM cod trip limit
from 800 lbs./DAS to 2,000 lbs./DAS is proposed in Options 3A. Assuming stable prices, the
change in the cod landing limit makes it possible for the vessel to increase its cod revenues per
DAS by a factor of 2.5 (if the vessel can catch the new limit on every trip, or increase its average
catch per trip in the same proportion as the change in the trip limit). Trip costs may also increase
if the vessel fishes longer to catch the new limit so the contribution margin may not increase by
the same proportion. Modify the example for a fleet of vessels fishing in multiple areas, on
multiple stocks with some trip limits that increase and some that decrease and it becomes clear
why the following discussion is qualitative.
Proposed Action/Option 3A
This option reduces Category A DAS by 50 percent and is expected to result in about 22,000
allocated baseline DAS. It also modifies the way DAS are counted: all DAS are counted in 24hour increments, but the two differential DAS areas are eliminated. These two changes will have
little impact on the break-even DAS needed for a vessel that has been making trips charged 24
hours or more on the DAS clock, but may increase the break-even DAS needed for vessels that
have been making trips charged less than 24 hours on the DAS clock. This option also increases
trip limits for cod to 2,000 lbs./DAS, eliminates trip limits for white hake and GB winter
flounder, and bans landing SNE/MA winter flounder and windowpane flounder. These trip limit
changes are likely to increase revenue per trip in the GOM and GB areas, but will reduce
revenues per trip in the SNE area.
Under this option there are not enough DAS for the fleet to break-even unless contribution
margins per DAS increase by about fifty-four percent (the difference between the DAS allocated
and the DAS needed to break-even). While the trip limit changes may foster this increase for
vessels that fish in the GOM and GB, it is unlikely that the same increase will occur in the SNE
area. Because DAS cannot be freely exchanged across vessel size classes, there are likely to be
vessels or groups of vessels that do not have access to enough DAS to break-even.

Mitigating Factors
The previous discussion focused on whether there are enough Category A DAS available for the
active participants to break-even. The discussion focused on comparing the baseline allocation of
DAS to the number of DAS needed. An additional source of Category A DAS is the number of
carry-over DAS that are available. Based on recent DAS use, in the first year of implementation
of Amendment 16 there are likely to be 6,000 – 7,000 carry-over DAS available. Under any
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

701

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Economic Impacts

alternative, this reduces the gap between the DAS allocated and the number needed to breakeven. It makes it more likely that the number of DAS will be sufficient for active participants to
break-even under the Proposed Action (Option 3A), as contribution margins will not need to
increase as much as in the absence of carry-over DAS. It is not clear how many carry-over DAS
will be available in the second-year of implementation, but any available carry-over DAS will
increase the pool of DAS than can be leased and may allow additional vessels to break-even.
The other source of groundfish DAS is Category B DAS that can be used in special management
programs. The issue here is not whether there are enough Category B DAS available – under all
options there will be more Category B DAS available than Category A DAS – but whether there
are opportunities to profitably use those DAS. For vessels that can access GB haddock in the CAI
Hook Gear Haddock SAP, the Category B (regular) DAS Program, the Eastern US/CA Haddock
SAP, or the modified CA II SAP, there may be enough opportunities to use Category B DAS that
the vessels can break-even. For other vessels it is unlikely that this will be the case.

7.5.1.3.1.3

Comparison of Economic Impacts of Effort Control Options

Comparing the impacts on vessel revenues of the effort control options is difficult for the same
reasons comparing biological impacts is difficult (see section 7.2.1.3.1.2). Options 2A and 4
would need further measures to meet the pollock rebuilding objective and there are measures that
are difficult for the CAM to analyze in every alternative. These uncertainties need to be
considered when comparing the options.
Table 266 and Table 267 summarize changes in total revenue and groundfish revenue by homeport
state. Not surprisingly, the No Action alternative has the least impact on both revenue streams for
the fishery as a whole. This does not hold true for individual states: Maine vessels lose more
groundfish revenue under No Action than under the Proposed Action - Option 3A; NJ and Other
states lose more revenues under No Action than under Options 2A and Proposed Action - Option
3A respectively. For the fishery as a whole, Option 3A has the least impact on total and
groundfish revenues. This is likely because the 24-hour clock has less impact on vessels that take
multi-day trips and removing differential DAS counting counteracts the DAS reduction and 24hour clock for those vessels that fished in the differential DAS area. Increasing trip limits
probably benefits almost all vessels.
Table 266 - Change in Total Revenue
State
No Action
2A
CT
MA
ME
NH
NJ
NY
RI
Other
Total

-6.1%
-9.7%
-10.6%
-9.6%
-3.3%
-3.6%
-4.5%
-3.2%
-7.7%

-11.7%
-19.6%
-22.4%
-10.3%
0.5%
-5.5%
-7.5%
-7.3%
-14.7%

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

Proposed
Action - 3A
-11.0%
-11.5%
-8.1%
-15.4%
-6.3%
-8.0%
-8.3%
-2.7%
-9.8%

702

4
-14.8%
-23.1%
-25.8%
-22.0%
-8.3%
-8.8%
-10.7%
-7.9%
-18.5%

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Economic Impacts
Table 267 - Change in Groundfish Trip Revenue
State
No Action
2A
3A

CT
MA
ME
NH
NJ
NY
RI
Other
Total

-29.7%
-28.9%
-28.6%
-26.4%
-30.4%
-31.1%
-29.5%
-25.1%
-28.9%

-12.3%
-12.1%
-11.8%
-11.5%
-12.2%
-12.8%
-12.4%
-10.3%
-12.1%

-23.4%
-24.5%
-24.8%
-12.3%
1.8%
-19.5%
-20.8%
-23.4%
-22.9%

-22.1%
-14.3%
-9.0%
-18.5%
-23.1%
-28.3%
-22.8%
-8.7%
-15.2%

A difficulty in comparing vessel-level impacts is that the effort control alternatives will impact
each individual vessel in different ways. Comparing alternatives based on average impacts does
not provide information on the distribution of impacts across the fishery. For this reason the
vessel level impacts are broken down into percentile groups, and the average impacts for each
group are reported. Examining the impacts in this way reveals that the different alternatives affect
fishermen in different ways; there is no single alternative that is best or worst for all vessel
categories. The size of the percentile groups that suffer adverse impacts can change between
alternatives because the number of vessels not affected changes. There are 509 vessels in the
analysis, which represents most vessels that landed groundfish.
Table 268 summarizes vessel level impacts on gross revenues. Other than No Action, Option 2A

has the most vessels that will not suffer adverse impacts: 69 vessels will have on average an 8
percent increase in revenues. Up to the median level of impact, Options 2A and Proposed Action
- Option 3A are similar. Above this level there are slight differences between the options. Option
4 consistently has larger vessel level impacts than the other options, except above the 80th
percentile. Proposed Action - Option 3A has the broadest range of average adverse impacts; one
interpretation is that this option has very different impacts on different vessels while within the
other options the impacts are more similar across different groups of vessels.

Table 268 – Comparison of vessel level impacts of gross revenues for effort control options
No Action

Impact Category
No Adverse Impact
Up to 20th Percentile
20th Percentile to Median
Median to 80th Percentile
Above 80th Percentile

Number
of
Vessels
34
95
143
142
95

Average
Adverse
Impact
0%
2%
6%
10%
13%

Option 2A
Number
of
Vessels
69
88
132
132
88

Average
Adverse
Impact
-8%
2%
8%
19%
30%

Proposed Action Option 3A
Number
of
Vessels
58
91
135
135
90

Average
Adverse
Impact
-8%
2%
8%
15%
36%

Option 4
Number
of
Vessels
16
99
148
148
98

Vessel level impact differences between options were also examined based on dependence on
groundfish revenue (Table 269). Comparing the options reveals that for vessels that are the most
dependent on groundfish (80% - 100%), the distribution of impacts for Option 4 tends to be
skewed to higher levels: even those vessels in the lowest category of impacts average an 18
percent reduction in revenues. Option 4 also seems to have the largest impacts for those vessels
that were the least dependent on groundfish revenues but differs only slightly from the Proposed
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

703

Average
Adverse
Impact
-2%
3%
13%
24%
31%

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Economic Impacts

Action - Option 3A. Proposed Action - Option 3A shows that for those most dependent on
groundfish and most affected average a 46 percent decline. Option 2A tends to have the least
impacts for vessels in the middle dependence on groundfish groups.
Table 269 – Vessel level adverse revenue impacts based on dependence on groundfish revenues
Dependence
Up to 20th
20th
Median to
Above 80th
Category
Percentile
Percentile
80th
Percentile
to Median
Percentile

0 to 19%
20 to 39%
40 to 59%
60 to 79%
80 to 100%

0.0%
2.0%
4.0%
7.0%
9.0%

0 to 19%
20 to 39%
40 to 59%
60 to 79%
80 to 100%

0.0%
2.0%
2.0%
4.0%
8.0%

0 to 19%
20 to 39%
40 to 59%
60 to 79%
80 to 100%

0.0%
2.0%
5.0%
6.0%
6.0%

0 to 19%
20 to 39%
40 to 59%
60 to 79%
80 to 100%

0.0%
6.0%
9.0%
14.0%
18.0%

7.5.1.3.1.4

No Action
1.0%
4.0%
5.0%
8.0%
11.0%
Option 2A
1.0%
5.0%
8.0%
11.0%
19.0%
Option 3A
1.0%
5.0%
10.0%
12.0%
11.0%
Option 4
1.0%
8.0%
13.0%
19.0%
26.0%

1.0%
4.0%
7.0%
9.0%
12.0%

2.0%
5.0%
8.0%
10.0%
14.0%

2.0%
7.0%
12.0%
18.0%
27.0%

4.0%
11.0%
16.0%
23.0%
33.0%

2.0%
9.0%
15.0%
21.0%
24.0%

6.0%
16.0%
22.0%
32.0%
46.0%

3.0%
10.0%
15.0%
22.0%
29.0%

6.0%
12.0%
18.0%
24.0%
32.0%

GOM Haddock Sink Gillnet Pilot Program

The Proposed Action, Option 2, is designed to facilitate targeting of GOM haddock by sink
gillnet vessels. The M-S Act requires that any recovery benefits be allocated fairly and equitably
among commercial, recreational, and charter fishing sectors in the fishery. Other measures
proposed in this action facilitate the targeting or retention of haddock by commercial trawl and
longline vessels, and by recreational (including party/charter) vessels. Amendment 13 adopted a
6.5 inch minimum size for both gears in the GOM, continuing a measure that was first adopted
through a court order in May, 2002.
Sink gillnet vessels accounted for 15 percent of commercial landings for GOM haddock from CY
1997 – CY 2002, but only 11 percent from CY 2003 through CY 2007. This change in percentage
is partly attributed to the increase in mesh size that was adopted in 2002 as a result of a court
order, and then incorporated into Amendment 13 (implemented May 1, 2004). The current mesh
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

704

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Economic Impacts

size is ineffective for targeting haddock (see Figure 132). By reducing the mesh size in a carefully
controlled pilot program, sink gillnet fishermen will have an improved ability to target this stock
and share in recovery benefits. This opportunity would not exist under the No Action option and
sink gillnet vessels would not be provided an opportunity to benefit from the recovery of
haddock. Under No Action, sink gillnet vessels would not have increased access to GOM
haddock and haddock revenues would be expected to be lower.
Option 2 will increase revenues for gillnet fishermen but they will also incur additional costs.
They will be required to purchase 6 inch gillnets that can be used only in this program.

7.5.1.3.1.5

Haddock Minimum Size

Lowering the haddock minimum size under the Proposed Action (Option 2) would increase the
number of haddock that would be allowed to be retained. Reducing the minimum size for
haddock will allow the landing of some undersized fish and increase fisheries revenues. The gains
from this measure will fluctuate as year class size changes. When a large year class enters the
fishery, as was the case with the 2003 year class in 2007 and 2008, this measure will have more
of an impact on revenues than when average or below average year classes recruit to the fishery.
If selectivity in the fishery does not change, the major impact will be an increase in revenues as
fish that would otherwise be discarded are retained. If this measure results in a change in
selectivity that leads to harvesting more small fish because of an accompanying gear change or
changes in targeting behavior, then the economic impacts are less clear. If this occurs, the
increase in revenue caused by landing smaller fish will be offset by yield lost because those fish
will not be harvested at older ages and sizes.

7.5.1.3.2 Recreational Management Measures

7.5.1.3.2.1

Provisions for Landing Fillets

Current regulations for groundfish do not require recreational vessels to land whole fish but do
require that fillets be landed with skin-on. This requirement facilitates enforcement of bag and
size limits for specific species. Landing skin-on fish allows for species identification. Having
skin-on fish available for voluntary inspection by MRIP staff provides verifiable species
identification. Data collected through the MRIP are used in stock assessments and are used in
analytical models to assess management alternatives such as bag and/or size limits.
The Proposed Action (Option 2) would require some portion of the skin to be left on the fillet to
facilitate species verification. Fillets must be taken from legal-sized fish. The economic impact of
Option 2 is uncertain. As noted in the discussion of non-selected Option 1, economic theory
predicts that the economic value of recreational fishing would be enhanced for people that prefer
to land filleted fish. As was the case for Option 1, landing fillets without skin may result in some
unknown increase in biological and/or management uncertainty the effects of which could lead to
lower ACLs or ABCs. However, in relative terms, these uncertainties may be expected to be
lower under Option 2. The requirement to leave some skin on would reduce management
uncertainty since species identification would be verifiable which would enhance both
enforcement of regulations and monitoring of groundfish landings. The degree of biological
uncertainty would also be less since most private boat anglers may choose to land their fish whole
which would make these fish available for voluntary biological sampling under the MRIP. Note
that under current protocols MRIP staff conduct biological sampling on board party vessels so
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

705

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Economic Impacts

even if fish are filleted the opportunity would still exist to obtain length and weight measurements
prior to being filleted.

7.5.1.3.2.2

Removal of the Limit on Hooks

Recreational anglers fishing for groundfish are currently limited to no more than two hooks per
line. This alternative would eliminate the limit on hooks per line which may be expected to
increase the probability of catching groundfish resulting in higher catch rates. Higher catch rates
may also increase the probability of catching a legal sized fish as well as increasing the number of
fish that may be kept. This alternative would increase the economic benefits derived from
recreational fishing for groundfish. The alternative would also provide additional economic gains
to fishermen that may be fishing for other species that may catch incidental numbers of
groundfish while using multiple hooks. Without removing the limit on numbers of hooks per line
these fish would have had to been discarded. The magnitude of these economic benefits is
uncertain as economic studies of the relationship between improved catch rates and improved
recreational fishing values have yet to be conducted.
The economic benefits of improved catch rates may be offset by changes in management
measures should the catch exceed the ACL, triggering accountability measures. That is, higher
catch rates may be expected to increase harvested groundfish but would also lead to an increase in
the number of fish that are discarded and subjected to potential discard mortality. Thus the
economic gains from removing the limit on number of hooks per line would need to be weighed
against the likelihood that an accountability measure may be triggered and the nature of the
accountability measure itself.

7.5.1.3.2.3

Measures to Reduce Mortality

The Proposed Action changes current regulations for GOM cod and for GOM haddock. The
regulations needed are dependent on the mortality targets for the amendment and the years chosen
for the commercial/recreational allocation. Since the years 2001-2006 are used for the
commercial/recreational allocation, and the SSC’s recommended ABC control rule was adopted,
the size limit for GOM haddock can be lowered to 18-inches and there is a fifteen-day change in
the season for GOM cod.
Impacts on anglers are measured by the loss in economic surplus associated with being unable to
engage in their preferred recreational fishing activity. Economic surplus is measured by the
difference between what anglers would be willing and able to pay to engage in a recreational
fishing activity and what they actually pay for that activity. Since recreational fishing is not a
market-based good the economic surplus is not revealed through market transactions and must be
inferred using non-market valuation techniques which require specialized studies including
primary data collection. Such studies are not available for groundfish at this time so it is not
possible to provide a quantitative estimate of the potential economic impacts on recreational
anglers. Nevertheless, since economic value in the recreational groundfish fishery may be
presumed to be primarily related to the expected number of fish that may be kept, a qualitative
analysis may provide some information about the potential ordinal ranking among the
recreational alternatives.
Since the 2001-2006 years for establishing a recreational/commercial allocation were selected,
the recreational fishing value would be expected to increase for GOM haddock but may decline
for GOM cod because the season is shorter.
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

706

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Economic Impacts

7.5.1.3.3 Atlantic Halibut Minimum Size
The Proposed Action (Option 2) increases the minimum size for landing Atlantic halibut for both
commercial and recreational vessels. For commercial vessels an increase in the minimum size is
likely to result in a loss in revenue. This loss may prove temporary as some fish discarded due to
the increased minimum size will survive and be harvested at a later date. The loss in revenue is
likely to be a fraction of the recent revenues since some landings are above the proposed
minimum size and some sub-legal landings are likely to continue.
The Proposed Action would increase the minimum size for Atlantic halibut to 41-inches.
Recreational catches of Atlantic halibut are uncertain. The MRIP provides an estimate of
recreational catch in only calendar year 2006 and that estimate has a very large standard error.
According to available party/charter logbook data on all trips taken during CY 2000 to 2007,
there were no more than a total of 2 Atlantic halibut that were retained in any year. The size of
these fish is not known. These data indicate that recreational fishing encounter rates of Atlantic
halibut are very low and the size distribution of the few fish that have been documented is not
known. Even if the size distribution were known, given the infrequent harvest of Atlantic halibut
the economic impact of raising the size limit to 41-inches is unlikely to have any measureable
effect on either the angler value of recreational fishing or the demand for party/charter trips when
compared to No Action. Therefore, the change in Atlantic halibut size limit may be expected to
have negligible, if any, economic impacts on the recreational groundfish fishery.

7.5.1.3.4 Prohibition on Retention of Atlantic Wolffish
The Proposed Action (Option 2) prohibits retention of Atlantic wolffish in the commercial and
recreational fisheries. This measure will reduce revenues for the commercial fishery. Given recent
landings trends, this measure will reduce revenues by roughly $100,000 to $150,000 per calendar
year for the duration of the prohibition. These lost revenues will not be replaced in the near future
unless the stock rebuilds rapidly, which is not expected.
The proposed measure would also prohibit retention of Atlantic wolffish by recreational anglers.
For this reason a prohibition would result in some reduction in economic value to recreational
groundfish anglers although the magnitude of this reduction is uncertain. While the economic
value for anglers that may target wolffish may be expected to be negative, these trips represent
such a small proportion of total angler trips that the magnitude of total economic impact is likely
to be small.
Although available data indicate that the number of recreational anglers that prefer to target
wolffish is comparatively small, these anglers were associated with the party/charter mode. The
strength of these preferences is not known but if being able to keep wolffish is important enough
they may choose not to take a party/charter trip. During CY2001-2007 the number of
party/charter trips that kept wolffish on at least one trip averaged about 1,100 trips. On average
these trips retained 3 wolffish per trip and were kept at a rate of approximately one wolffish
retained for every 34 groundfish (predominately cod and haddock) kept. These data suggest that
wolffish are likely to be an incidental catch while on a groundfish trip and while some loss in
economic value to party/charter anglers may be expected when compared to No Action, this loss
may be unlikely to appreciably affect the demand for party/charter trips.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

707

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Economic Impacts

7.5.1.3.5 Implementation of Additional Sectors/Modifications to Existing
Sectors
This action is considering modifications to the two existing sectors and implementation of
seventeen additional sectors. Determining the economic impacts of these changes is difficult.
Sectors were introduced to this fishery by Amendment 13 in FY 2004 as a mitigation measures
for the expected impacts of the changes to the effort control system. It is widely recognized that
the effort controls are blunt tools that can have impacts that are distributed differently across the
fishery. For example, planned reductions in the GB cod trip limit that were considered in
Amendment 13 were predicted to have more impacts on longline vessels than vessels using other
gear because cod was the majority of their catch and longline vessels have relatively high trip
costs because of the gear and bait used. The sector program provided an opportunity for longline
vessels to fish without being subject to the low trip limit. It was also expected that with the ability
to receive exemptions from some elements of the effort control program, sector vessels would be
able to operate more efficiently and would be more profitable.
Amendment 13 authorized one sector in FY 2004, and FW 42 authorized a second sector that
began full operations in FY 2007. Section 6.2.4 provides an overview of their performance. While
informative, it is difficult to translate these experiences into predictions of the expected impacts
of the proposed new sectors for several reasons. The two existing sectors are relatively
homogenous. They primarily use fixed gear, consist of vessels that are roughly the same size, are
homeported and land their catch in a defined geographic area, and both sectors include a number
of participants active in an industry organization. While some of the proposed sectors are also
geographically defined and consist of vessels that are of similar size and use similar gear, others
include members from a number of ports, plan to use several gear types, and consist of vessels of
varying sizes. For these reasons caution should be exercised before extending the experiences of
the two existing sectors to the proposed new sectors. In addition, this action is considering many
changes to the administration of sectors that could affect their economic performance in ways that
are very different than the experiences of the past five years. Additional reporting and monitoring
requirements and additional administrative requirements will impose additional costs on sectors
that were, for the most part, not incurred by the two existing sectors.
Another difficulty with predicting the economic impacts of sectors is that the vessels that will
participate in sectors is uncertain and will not be determined until after the amendment is
submitted for review and approval by NMFS. Initial indications are that over 600 permits may be
enrolled in sectors, and the potential sector contribution of those permits could approach nearly
80 percent of the ACL (see section 7.5.1.2.3.2.9). If this occurs, sectors will be the driving force
for the economic performance of the fishery, for good or ill. But if the number of vessels/permits
that actually commit to sectors is substantially less than this number, sectors may be a minor
component of the fishery as has been the case the last few years. Finally, the economic impacts of
sectors will depend on the specific operating rules within individual sectors. These will be
identified in sector operations plans that are still in development.
With these caveats in mind, broad themes can be identified that are likely to result from the
implementation of additional sectors. Because sectors automatically receive exemptions from
specific effort control measures, and can request exemptions from other measures, sector vessels
should be able to operate in a more efficient manner than vessels that fish outside of sectors that
are subject to the complete effort control program. The performance of the Fixed Gear Sector
may be an example of these improved efficiencies: freed from trip limit and gillnet net
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

708

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Economic Impacts

restrictions, they harvested more cod in FY 2007 than in the previous year. For example, as
described in section 7.2.1.3.5, trawl vessels in sectors are likely to increase catch rates and fish
fewer days, reducing trip costs and increasing profitability. This may also allow these vessels
more opportunities to fish in other fisheries since they will likely spend less time fishing for
groundfish. It may also allow sectors to operate in ways that allow members to fish more
selectively and harvest a higher proportion of the ACE than would be the case if fishing under
effort controls.
Counter-acting the increased revenues per trip will be increased reporting and monitoring costs.
Estimates of these costs range vary depending on the exact requirements and fishing activity, but
could be in the range of $13,500 - $27,000 per vessel per year (see section 7.5.1.2.4). This is large
enough that it is a legitimate question whether sector vessels will be able to operate efficiently
enough to cover these additional costs. Administrative costs must also be addressed. It is possible
that external funding through grants or other sources may help fund these costs. For FY 2010,
NMFS has announced it will fund sector monitoring costs and may assist with other
administrative costs. While this may reduce costs in FY 2010, it is unclear whether this external
funding will continue into the future.
If sector membership is similar to initial indications, then communities and states that are likely to
benefit from new sectors can be identified. Twelve of the nineteen sectors that are proposed are
affiliated with Massachusetts ports. Three sectors are primarily located on Cape Cod or the
islands of Nantucket and Martha’s Vineyard; three are associated with New Bedford, three with
Gloucester, two with the Boston south shore area, and one with Boston. One sector is associated
with the Port Clyde, Maine area, two are proposed from Rhode Island, and two from the New
Hampshire coast. Two sectors have a wider geographic membership and are not as clearly
affiliated with specific ports or states. There are no sectors proposed that appear closely linked to
the states of Connecticut, New York, or New Jersey. While it is likely that some vessels that
claim these states as homeport will join other sectors it does not appear the impacts of sectors will
be as large for these states.
The economic benefits of sector formation also depend on ACE allocations. Several sectors
propose to operate in the SNE or Great South Channel areas. These areas coincide with the stock
area for SNE/MA winter flounder. The Council has targeted fishing mortality for this stock to be
as close to 0 as possible. Landings are prohibited from this stock and there may not be an ACL
for this stock. If this occurs, it creates a problem for sectors that wish to operate in the SNE/MA
winter flounder stock area. Sectors cannot operate in a stock area if they do not have ACE for that
stock (see section 5.2.3.3) unless they can describe in their operations plan the fishing techniques
that will be used to avoid catching the stock. It will be difficult for sectors using trawl, and
perhaps gillnet gear, to identify fishing techniques that can be used in the SNE/MA stock area
without catching SNE/MA winter flounder – particularly if the vessels intend to target yellowtail
flounder. For this reason, the Pt. Judith sectors, and the New Bedford SNE and New Bedford
Channel sectors may receive limited economic benefits from implementation. Joining sectors may
actually limit opportunities for vessels that fish in these areas.

7.5.1.3.6 Accountability Measures
The Proposed Action implements several types of AMs for the commercial and recreational
components of the fishery. In addition, there are elements of the sector administration measures

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

709

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Economic Impacts

that are AMs; the impacts of these measures are indistinguishable from the general sector impacts
and will not be discussed further on this section.
Over the long-term the implementation of effective AMs would be expected to contribute to
rebuilding of groundfish stocks as biological objectives are achieved. This would be expected to
increase the revenues for the commercial fishery and the recreational harvest as fishermen benefit
from stock rebuilding. Specific AMs could have different economic impacts.

7.5.1.3.6.1 Common Pool Accountability Measures Alternative 2 –
Differential DAS
For FY 2010 and FY 2011, this measure adjusts DAS counting based on whether ACLs are
exceeded or not. The adjustment occurs in the year after catch is compared to the ACL.
Adjustments are applied to a stock area rather than the fishery as a whole, and are based on the
maximum overage of an ACL for stocks in the area. The mixed stock exception will be
considered when determining the differential DAS adjustment. While AMs are usually considered
solely in the context of overages of the ACL, this particular AM allows for the possibility that
catches will fall short of the ACLs and allows for an increase in fishing effort as a result.
The economic impacts of this AM are difficult to predict. Generally, increasing the differential
DAS rate throughout the fishery as a result of an ACL overage would reduce the number of DAS
available to the fishery and make it more difficult for groundfish fishing vessels to recover fixed
costs. If the differential DAS rate is reduced because catches are below ACLs for all stocks, the
opposite occurs: more DAS become available and revenues and profits would be expected to
increase. These broad impacts may not actually occur, however, as the measure is constructed so
that it is possible differential DAS adjustments may occur in specific stock areas rather than
throughout the fishery as a whole. Changes in differential DAS counting in one area and not
another may result in effort shifts that not only modify the expected biological impacts of the
measure but could alter the economic impacts. Increased fishing that results from changes in
differential DAS counting might depress prices and reduce revenues. The only way to analyze
these impacts would be to run the CAM for an infinite number of possible differential DAS
changes, clearly an impossible task.
One advantage to this approach is that because it does not make in-season changes to
management measures it helps facilitate business planning by fishermen. The measure is designed
so that the differential DAS changes are expected to be announced prior to or at the start of a
fishing year, which will allow fishermen at least some opportunity to plan activity for the year.
This should minimize any race to fish that might result from in-season adjustments. A
disadvantage is that adjusting DAS counting is, like many effort controls, a blunt instrument that
cannot effectively target particular problem stocks. It is possible that an adjustment will be
triggered by an ACL overage for a minor stock; this will reduce yields for all stocks caught in the
area, even those that are healthy. Fishermen that may not even catch a stock may have DAS
reduced for an overage that they did not contribute to. For example, an overage of a flounder
stock will reduce fishing effort for longline gear that has little or no interaction with the stock.
This option also proposes that if an ACL is exceeded an analysis will be done to determine if the
mixed stock exception is applicable and if so it will be applied. While not stated, the implication
is that there may be instances where a differential DAS adjustment is not made or a smaller
increase in DAS counting is made because overfishing is allowed to occur on a stock or stocks.
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

710

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Economic Impacts

The justification for this provision is that it provides some flexibility to maximize overall yield
from the fishery rather than hold the fishery hostage to the weakest stock. If invoked, this
provision would be expected to increase revenues for non-sector vessels. Given recent changes to
the NSGs which prohibit using this exception if a stock is overfished, it is likely rare that this
provision will be invoked in the near future for groundfish stocks.
If non-sector vessels are allowed to exceed the ACL with reduced consequences this could have
implications for sector participants and the recreational fishery. Sector catches are bound by the
ACE allocated to the sector; if there is an overage remaining after any transfers of ACE between
sectors, the sector is held accountable for the overage and must pay back the overage in the year
immediately following. There are no provisions for sectors to invoke the mixed stock exception
and reduce or eliminate the payback provision, as is being proposed for non-sector vessels. There
is no provision for recreational fishing vessels to be exempt from an AM because of the mixed
stock exception. Not only does this raise an equity concern, but it could create incentives for nonsector fishing vessels to be less concerned about remaining within the ACL. Over the long-term,
if overfishing is allowed to continue by non-sector vessels it is possible that stock size will be
smaller than if overfishing was ended and as a result the ACL will be smaller, reducing the ACE
available to sector participants and the recreational fishery. This provision also seems to conflict
with the ACL concept that to the extent possible an overage by one component should not affect
the ACL available for other components.

7.5.1.3.6.2 Common Pool Accountability Measure Alternative 1 – Hard
TAC
Beginning in FY 2012, this alternative overlays a hard TAC AM system over the effort controls
for those vessels that do not choose to join sectors. The hard TAC system proposed is similar to
one considered in Amendment 13. The ACL for each groundfish stock is distributed across
trimesters. When approached, groundfish fishing is ended in much of the stock area with gear that
catches that stock.
The ACL is not allocated to each individual vessel and in many respects can be considered a
global TAC. Potential adverse economic impacts of global TAC systems have been well
documented. Morgan (1997) summarized findings from several other studies and concluded that
these systems often “produce excess capacity, poor stock conservation, and reduced profitability.”
He identified the following reasons for these results:
•
•
•
•

Increased competition among operators
Difficulties of enforcement of the TACs, particularly in multispecies fisheries and if
the management system is designed without consideration of harvesting practices
Inappropriate TACs, a broad reason that includes adopting TACs in fisheries where
they are not appropriate, setting TACs with inadequate data, political manipulation of
proposed TACs, and lack of structure in recommended TACs.
Inappropriate institutional arrangements that do not include industry support for
management arrangements.

711

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Economic Impacts

There are elements of the management plan that may slow this response, but they are unlikely to
eliminate it. For example, the effort control systems proposed limit total effort (DAS) available to
individual vessels, incorporate trip limit that limit what can be landed on each individual trip, and
adopt closures that limit fishing opportunities in some of the time and places that catch rates are
expected to be high. This might help slow the race to fish. The hard TAC system also includes
some attempts to reduce the incentive for this activity. By splitting the TAC into three trimesters,
fisherman are certain of at least a limited opportunity to fish over the course of the year and do
not need to be as concerned that if they don’t fish as hard as possible at the beginning of the year
they will lose all opportunities. While it is often said that dividing the TAC into periods just
creates multiple races to fish rather than just one, there may be some benefit in doing so to extend
availability of fish to fishermen and the market.
The second reason that may apply is difficulty in enforcing the TACs. The possibility that a TAC
may be approached and result in closing the fishery can lead to discarding and illegal unreported
landings of catch. The AM proposed attempts to address these concerns by increasing the
reporting and monitoring requirements. All landings must be witnessed through a weighmaster
system in this option.
While there is no guarantee that TACs in this AM will be set at appropriate levels there are
mechanisms in place that should prevent some of the problems in setting appropriate TACs that
were identified by Morgan (1997). Recent M-S Act changes require that ACLs cannot be set
higher than the ABC recommendation of the Council’s SSC. This makes it unlikely that they will
be set contrary to scientific advice, though it is possible that the TACs may be exceeded if they
are not adequately monitored. It is not clear if there is industry support for this AM and that could
lead to the problems cited by Morgan.
Stefansson and Rosenberg (2005), on the other hand, conducted a simulation study of the
effectiveness of quota systems, effort control systems, and MPAs when used independently and
when used in concert. Their study also considered how well these systems would work in the face
of uncertainty. While the study focused on a theoretical single-species fishery, their conclusion
was that there are clear economic benefits to combining systems to rebuild stocks. The economic
benefits are a result of a greater likelihood of long-term sustainability. This is in essence what the
effort control measures (which include both effort limits and closures that have some of the
characteristics of MPAs) and this AM would do. This study did not explicitly model behavioral
changes (such as the race to fish) that can result from the imposition of quotas.
One of the very practical economic impacts of this AM is that it creates additional uncertainty for
fishermen attempting to develop a business plan. Fishermen will have difficulty evaluating if or
when an area may be closed to groundfish fishing, particularly in the first year of implementation.
The closures may disrupt the market and result in fluctuating prices. This system also imposes
additional costs on common pool fishermen as they are responsible for dockside monitoring costs.
Unlike sectors, they remain subject to the inefficiencies of the effort control system and thus are
limited in their ability to modify behavior to increase profits and absorb the increased reporting
costs.
This proposed AM also imposes a significant administrative burden on NMFS. There is the
potential that trimester TACs will need to be monitored for all twenty groundfish stocks, though
initially TACs will not be monitored for stocks that cannot be landed. Monitoring the TACs and
announcing openings and closures of the fishery creates an extensive burden that is in addition to

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

712

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Economic Impacts

the considerable burden of monitoring the effort control system and sectors. This system may also
increase the need for enforcement resources to prevent illegal or unreported landings.

7.5.1.3.6.3

Recreational Fishery Accountability Measures

The Proposed Action (Option 3) is a compromise between the other two alternatives to No Action
that were considered. Recreational harvest is reviewed and potential AMs are selected from
changes in season, bag limits, or minimize size limits. NMFS selects the AM after consultation
with the Council. It is probable that AMs adopted in this option can be announced by January.
NMFS can review harvest and select appropriate AMs without waiting for a Council
recommendation, and can meet the consultation requirement without delaying the regulatory
process needed to comply with the APA.
The imposition of AMs will have economic impacts on the recreational fishery. Changes in bag
limits and minimum sizes will typically reduce the catch that can be landed. With respect to the
party/charter fishery, groundfish fishing is primarily a meat fishery and customers may value a
trip based on the potential landings rather than the likely landings. Large minimum sizes or low
bag limits reduce the potential landings and devalue the trip. In a similar way, changes in season
may deter customers from fishing if the perception is that the seasons with the best fishing
opportunities are not available. There is however evidence that changes in regulations for one
species can be compensated by increased targeting of a different species. As reported in section
6.2.5, there is evidence that regulatory restrictions on GOM cod resulted in increased targeting of
GOM haddock. FW 42 adopted additional restrictions for GOM cod in FY 2006. While GOM
cod harvested in 2006 was only 43 percent of the cod harvested in 2005, the number of
party/charter trips declined by only 5.4 percent and the number of passengers declined by only 10
percent from recent averages. Catches of GOM cod in 2007 rebounded to 72 percent of the catch
in 2005 and harvest increased to 53 percent. During the same two year period, the catch and
harvest of GOM haddock changes about 10.5 percent, similar to the change in number of
passengers.

7.5.2 Economic Impacts of Alternatives to the Proposed Action
7.5.2.1 Updates to Status Determination Criteria and Formal Rebuilding
Programs

7.5.2.1.1 Revised Status Determination Criteria
Option 1, the No Action alternative, is not expected to have any economic impacts. The No
Action MSY values, however, do not represent use of the best available science and may not be
sustainable.

7.5.2.1.2 ABC Control Rules
The No Action alternative would keep the Amendment 13 MSY control rules in effect. When
compared to the Proposed Action, these control rules allow for a more explicit consideration of
stock status. If a stock is I good condition and might rebuild at fishing mortality rate between
75FMSY and FMSY , these control rules would allow the use of that level as the basis for the ABC.
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

713

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Economic Impacts

In these situations – which admittedly are rare with current groundfish stock status – the No
Action alternative would potentially allow a higher ABC catch levels. This could produce larger
economic benefits than the Proposed Action in these specific circumstances. But the increased
risk of such an approach may lead to more variable catches, and the lack of consistency may
outweigh any short-term economic gains.

7.5.2.1.3 Revised Mortality Targets for Formal Rebuilding Programs
Under Option 1, the fishing mortality targets used to guide development of management measures
would not be revised as necessary to rebuild groundfish stocks. For some stocks the original
Amendment 13 mortality targets are higher than the proposed revisions. Using these targets
would produce higher landing streams in the short-term but at the expense of successful
rebuilding programs. Future stock size would be less likely to increase to the levels associated
with the revised mortality targets, sacrificing long-term yield. There are other stocks, however,
where the revised targets are higher than the Amendment 13 targets and No Action would
sacrifice available yield. In general, over the long-term it would be expected that the No Action
alternative would lead to lower landing streams.

7.5.2.2

Fishery Program Administration

7.5.2.2.1 Annual Catch Limits
Option 1 (the No Action alternative) would not adopt ACLs. While this would result in lower
administrative costs than under Option 2, it could increase the risk that mortality targets would
not be achieved. This could lead to a less sustainable fishery and a failure to rebuild stocks. If this
were to occur, over the long-term No Action would be expected to result in reduced yields and
revenues from the fishery.

7.5.2.2.2 Addition of Atlantic Wolffish to the Management Unit
Option 1 (No Action) would not add Atlantic wolffish to the management unit. This is primarily
an administrative decision and is not expected to have economic impacts.

7.5.2.2.3 Sector Administration Provisions

7.5.2.2.3.1

Sector Formation, Operations Plans, and Annual Reports

It is not clear how the No Action alternative (Option 1) and the Proposed Action revisions to
sector formation requirements (Option 2) differ in economic impacts. Presumably the additional
requirements imposed by Option 2 will lead to an incremental increase in costs but the magnitude
of the difference cannot be determined. These costs will only be incurred by groups of vessels
that choose to operate as a sector; presumably they will only choose to do so if sector benefits
outweigh sector costs.
Option 1 (No Action) would not allow a permit in the CPH category to join a sector. For these
permits to be eligible to join a sector, they must be taken out of this category and placed on a
vessel. This incurs costs for the permit owner even if the permit is placed on a skiff. These costs
are higher than under the Proposed Action.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

714

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Economic Impacts

7.5.2.2.3.2

Allocation of Resources

7.5.2.2.3.2.1

General

The No Action alternative maintains the Amendment 13 guidance on allocation of resources to
sectors. Sectors would be able to request an allocation of either a hard TAC or a DAS allocation.
This would increase the flexibility for fishermen forming a sector. Landings history for the
allocation of a TAC would be based on a rolling five-year period, which would allow the future
formation of sectors by vessels that may not have landings history for a stock or stock in the past.
Sectors were limited to twenty percent of a stock’s TAC, limiting the size of sectors. This could
increase costs for sector proponents, as efficiencies of scale are limited.

7.5.2.2.3.2.2

Guidance on Sector Overages

The No Action option does not provide any guidance on how sector overages are addressed if a
vessel leaves a sector, or a sector disbands, after n overage of ACE occurs. Failure to address this
issue could reduce the effectiveness of sectors and could impose additional costs on those permit
holders that choose to remain in the sector. It could lead to irresponsible permit holders ignoring
sector limits on catch and then exiting the sector after an overage.

7.5.2.2.3.2.3

U.S./Canada Area

In the U.S./Canada area, fishing for EGB cod and haddock and GB yellowtail flounder is limited
by a hard TAC for all vessels. AMs are triggered when the TAC of these stocks is caught,
including closure of the eastern U.S./Canada area. With the expectation that additional sectors
may be implemented in FY 2010, a concern was raised that fishing by common pool or sector
vessels could affect the other component of the fishery.
Under the No Action alternative, separate allocations of U.S/Canada stocks are not made to
sectors. All catches by any vessel are applied to the U.S./Canada TAC. There is an explicit risk
that this will lead to a race to fish in this area. Since sectors are not subject to trip limits or several
other effort controls, sector vessels could rapidly catch the TAC in the area and preclude fishing
in the area by non-sector vessels. Alternatively, sectors would be unable to plan their operations
to maximize returns from their TACs because of the risk that delaying fishing until later in the
year might allow non-sector vessels to harvest the entire TAC in this area.

7.5.2.2.3.2.4

Sector Baseline Calculations

This section analyzes the impacts of the different options for establishing PSC for each permit.

7.5.2.2.3.2.5

Analysis of PSC Options for “Capacity” Factor

Three of the options to No Action for determining potential sector contributions (PSCs) included
a factor that has been described as a “capacity” factor. This analysis examines whether the
“capacity” components of the potential sector contribution options show a systematic relationship
to output. The dependent variable (output measure) was the VTR-reported kept pounds of
regulated groundfish. Independent variables used were length, horsepower, gross tonnage, and
days absent (DA), calculated from the VTR and not the DAS database). Models were constructed
for the three primary gear types: trawl, gillnet, and longline, and for FY 2001 through 2006.
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

715

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Economic Impacts

The data were analyzed for their fit to two models: a linear model and a Cobb-Douglas
production function. In each case, stepwise regression procedures were followed to fit the model.
Parameters were included if they contributed significantly to the predictive power of the model.
The attached tables summarize the model results, showing the factors that were significant in
each model and the contribution to R2. In all models, DA (days absent) was significant and
contributed most to the predictive power of the models. For otter trawl gear, length and
horsepower were usually significant but contributed little to the model’s predictive power.
Tonnage was also significant in the linear model but again added little to the model’s predictive
power. For gillnet and longline gear, almost all the predictive power of the model is related to
days absent. While length, horsepower, and tonnage were significant in some years, these factors
contributed little to improving the predictive power of the model.
To summarize, for the factors considered, the results suggest that days absent provides most of
the predictive power in determining the output of regulated groundfish for a groundfish permit.
Vessel characteristics provide little to explaining output even in those cases where the parameters
are statistically significant. This suggests that PSC Option 4 likely has the closest relationship to
potential output for those options that include a “capacity” factor.
The No Action option does not include a “capacity” factor.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

716

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Economic Impacts

Table 270 - Stepwise Order for Cobb-Douglas Model
Trawl
FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004
DAS
1
1
1
1
Length
2
3
3
Horsepower
2
2
2
Tonnage
Gillnet
DAS
Length
Horsepower
Tonnage
Long Line
DAS
Length
Horsepower
Tonnage

Long Line
DAS
Length
Horsepower
Tonnage

FY2006
1

1
2

1
4
3
2

1
2
3

FY 2004
1

FY 2005
1

FY2006
1

2
3

Table 271 - Stepwise Order for Linear Model
Trawl
FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003
DAS
1
1
1
Length
4
4
Horsepower
3
2
2
Tonnage
2
3
3
Gillnet
DAS
Length
Horsepower
Tonnage

FY 2005
1

3
2

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

1
2
3

717

3
2

1
3
2

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Economic Impacts

Table 272 - Stepwise Marginal Contribution to R-Square for Cobb-Douglas Model
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
FY2006
Trawl
DAS
0.8226
0.8766
0.8128
0.8335
0.82
0.8634
Length
0.0245
0.002
0.0026
Horsepower
0.0131
0.0255
0.0097
0.007
0.0143
Tonnage
Gillnet
DAS
Length
Horsepower
Tonnage
Long Line
DAS
Length
Horsepower
Tonnage

0.7791

0.7826
0.007

0.797

0.8184
0.0032

0.8438
0.0025

0.7586
0.0033

0.6315

0.7208
0.014
0.0132
0.014

0.5701
0.0516
0.0521

0.6116
0.0126
0.0273

0.7607
0.0101
0.0289

0.7637
0.0084
0.0128

Table 273 - Stepwise Marginal Contribution to R-Square for Linear Model
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
Trawl
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
FY2006
DAS
0.6837
0.702
0.6763
0.7505
0.759
0.6926
Length
0.0023
0.0029
Horsepower
0.0058
0.0484
0.0585
0.0448
0.0296
0.0231
Tonnage
0.0552
0.0058
0.0081
0.0018
0.0034
Gillnet
DAS
Length
Horsepower
Tonnage
Long Line
DAS
Length
Horsepower
Tonnage

0.6366

0.6994

0.7768

0.8033

0.7347

0.6385

0.0076

0.6937

0.6107

0.0139

0.0175
0.0132

7.5.2.2.3.2.6

0.363
0.0527
0.0824

0.5717

0.6301

0.0449
0.0521

0.025
0.0088

0.7077
0.0269
0.009

Economic Impacts of Sector Share Allocations

The analysis of the economic impacts of sector share allocations included an extensive
comparison of the stock-specific allocations that result from each alternative. The information is
presented in an extensive series of tables. In order to facilitate review of those tables by the
reader, rather than relocate the tables that describe the impacts of the non-selected alternatives to
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

718

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Economic Impacts

this section, all tables were retained in one location. Please see sections 7.5.1.2.3.2.4 through
7.5.1.2.3.3 for a discussion of the economic impacts of the non-selected alternatives (including
the No Action alternative).

7.5.2.2.3.3

Monitoring and Enforcement

7.5.2.2.3.3.1

Enforcement

This measure considered, but did not adopt, two alternatives to the Proposed Action.
Under No Action, no changes are made to existing sector enforcement provisions. Current
regulations suggest a sector is responsible for a violation of any federal regulation by any sector
member. This creates a liability for every permit holder in the sector that is uncontrollable. This
liability has been raised as a concern by banks funding boat owners and if allowed to continue
could inhibit sector formation.
Option 1 makes it clear that sector members are responsible only for violation of sector related
regulations and sector operations plan requirements. As compared to No Action, this limits the
liability of sector members. Compared to the Proposed Action, sectors members would remain
jointly liable to a broader range of offenses, increasing enforcement risks for permits that join
sectors.

7.5.2.2.3.3.2

Sector Monitoring Requirements

The No Action option has limited guidance on specific monitoring requirements. This option
imposes fewer requirements and thus fewer costs on sectors, but at the expense of accurate catch
monitoring.

7.5.2.2.3.4

Transfer of ACE

The only alternative to the Proposed Action that was considered was the No Action option
(Option 1).
Under Option 1, ACE cannot be transferred and unused ACE cannot be carried into future time
periods. This is the No Action option for this measure. There are two key impacts if this is
adopted. First, the inability for sectors to carry forward any portion of unused ACE into a future
time period means that sectors will lose yield (landings and revenue) for any stock that they are
unable to harvest the complete ACE in the year assigned. An unwillingness to lose this revenue
may lead to sector management decisions to be certain to harvest all ACE prior to the end of the
fishing year. Depending on the sector’s confidence in controlling catch rates, this time buffer may
be long enough that the sector loses opportunities that may yield higher returns to the sector.
Another way a sector could lose ACE is if poor weather interferes with planned catches. A
second possible impact is that the inability to transfer ACE – or to acquire ACE in a transfer –
means that portions of the ACE could be unused. This could occur in several ways. Depending on
the PSC allocation method selected, a sector could receive ACE that it cannot fish. For example,
a sector operating strictly in the Gulf of Maine might receive ACE for SNE/MA species. Second,
it is possible that a miscalculation of catch rates for one stock could lead to a premature closure of
the sector’s fishery that cannot be rectified by acquiring ACE from another sector.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

719

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Economic Impacts

7.5.2.2.3.5

Sector Participation in Special Management Programs

The No Action alternative to the Proposed Action would leave it uncertain what rules apply to
sectors, and as a result presumably general rules will have to be followed. These impose effort
restrictions on sector operations in these programs, reducing efficient and the benefits expected to
accrue from sectors.

7.5.2.2.4 Reporting Requirements
The No Action alternative would not require daily reporting of any vessel that declares into more
than one of four designated areas on a given trip. Filing such reports via VMS incurs costs to the
vessel owner that would not be incurred under the No Action alternative. Depending on the
specific VMS vendor and contract used by the vessel, these additional costs may or may not be
included in the service package. Per character costs are on the order of $0.04 for each character
submitted.

7.5.2.2.5 Allocation of Groundfish to the Commercial and Recreational
Groundfish Fisheries
Taking no action would not make any allocation of groundfish between the recreational and the
commercial groundfish fishery. This means that both user groups would be subject to a combined
ACL and an AM would not be triggered unless the estimated combined catch exceeds the ACL.
Under the current effort control program adjustments to meet conservation objectives have
typically required a proportional reduction in all sources of fishing mortality. This process does
not necessarily consider whether the need for adjustment was triggered by a change in
recreational or commercial catches.

7.5.2.2.6 Changes to the DAS Transfer and DAS Leasing Programs
The No Action alternative would not eliminate the DAS tax of the transfer program. This would
result in less consolidation of permits (when compared to the Proposed Action), since few permits
have used this program since it was adopted. The No Action alternative also would not have
allowed permits in the CPH category to participate in the leasing program. This would increase
costs by reducing the DAS available for the leasing program. In addition, permit holders would
have to activate their permit by placing it on a vessel before leasing DAS, reducing the profit
earned from leasing DAS.
The No Action alternative would not remove the DAS leasing cap. It is likely that compared to
the Proposed Action this would result in increased costs for fishing business owners as they may
choose to operate two vessels to fish a given number of DAS that could be fished on one vessel if
not for the leasing cap.
Other alternatives that were not adopted included adopting a tax on DAS leasing that is equal to
the tax on permit transfers. Assuming that the tax on transfers was not zero, this alternative would
increase costs to permit owners when compared to No Action. Since a tax would reduce the
number of useable DAS acquired in a transaction, permit owners would have to lease more DAS
to acquire a given number of DAS that can be actually used. The Council also considered
removing the tax on DAS transfers for a fixed period. This would also increase costs when
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

720

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Economic Impacts

compared to the Proposed Action, since the tax would not be permanently removed. In addition, it
could distort the market for permit transfers. Sellers of permits would know that buyers were
faced with a fixed period in which to execute a transfer, and so might attempt to negotiate a
higher price during the window of opportunity.

7.5.2.2.7 Special Management Programs
7.5.2.2.7.1

Closed Area I Hook Gear Haddock SAP Revisions

The No Action option does not extend the CAI Hook Gear Haddock SAP in time or space. In
recent years only a fraction of the haddock available to this SAP has been harvested. This is not
likely to change under the No Action alternative, and compared to the Proposed Action, yield
would be sacrificed. The No Action alternative would minimize the risk of conflicts between
sector and non-sector vessels, since it would continue the practice of allowing each group access
to the area at a different time.

7.5.2.2.7.2

Eastern U.S./Canada Haddock SAP

Under the No Action alternative, this SAP would be allowed to expire and opportunities to target
haddock in this SAP would be lost.

7.5.2.2.7.3

Closed Area II Yellowtail Flounder SAP Revisions

Under the No Action alternative, this SAP would continue to be open only in the years when GB
yellowtail flounder abundance is high enough to support the SAP. When compared to the
Proposed Action, there would be fewer opportunities to target haddock.

7.5.2.2.7.4

SNE/MA Winter Flounder SAP

Amendment 13 adopted a SAP for SNE/MA winter flounder that allowed landing up to 200
pounds of winter flounder without using a DAS. The No Action alternative would allow this
practice to continue. Fishing revenues would be slightly higher (on the order of $150,000 $200,000; see section 7.5.1.2.7.4) when compared to the Proposed Action.

7.5.2.2.7.5

Category B DAS (Regular) Program

Of the No Action alternative were selected, fishing revenues may be higher than under the
Proposed Action. This is because vessels could continue to use the Category B (regular) DAS
Program to target pollock, which has become an important component of this program (see
section 6.2.3.5).

7.5.2.2.8 Periodic Adjustment Process
The changes proposed in this measure are administrative in nature and are not expected to have
any economic impacts when compared to the No Action alternative.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

721

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Economic Impacts

7.5.2.2.9 Simultaneous Possession of a Limited Access Multispecies and
Scallop Permit
The No Action option continues the current restriction that prevents a vessel from holding a
limited access permit in the multispecies and scallop fisheries unless the vessel qualifies for a
multispecies combination permit. This provision restricts the flexibility of vessels to participate in
more than one fishery and prevents the consolidation of fishing opportunities for two fisheries
onto one vessel. As a result, there is less effective use of capital assets than would occur if the
restriction were lifted.

7.5.2.2.10

Catch History

Under the No Action alternative, catch history would continue to accrue to the vessel or
component that landed the catch. As discussed in section 7.5.1.2.10 this could inhibit use of the
ACE transfer provisions, reducing the efficiency of sectors and increasing costs.

7.5.2.3

Measures to Meet Mortality Objectives

7.5.2.3.1 Commercial Fishery Management Measures

7.5.2.3.1.1

Economic Impacts of No Action

Taking No Action would leave all current management measures including the 2:1 differential
DAS areas in the Gulf of Maine and Southern New England as well as adding the default 18%
reduction in allocated Category A DAS prescribed by Amendment 13.
Aggregate Impacts
Average groundfish trip revenue for the vessels included in the analysis was $101 million during
FY 2005 to FY 2007 and average total revenue was $158 million. Under no action the estimated
groundfish trip revenue would decline by 12.1% to $89 million and total fishing revenue would
decline by 7.7% to $145 million (Table 274). The relative reduction in groundfish trip revenue
varied little by home port state ranging from 10.3% to 12.8%. However, the change in total trip
revenue varied among home port states primarily based on the relative contribution of groundfish
trip revenue to total revenue. This is why trip revenue declined by approximately 10% in Maine,
New Hampshire, and Massachusetts, but declined by no more than 6% in any other state.
In general, the estimated impacts are lower than what may have been expected given an 18%
reduction in A DAS. However, even though Amendment 13 significantly reduced latent effort in
the groundfish fishery latent effort was not eliminated. For example, in both FY 2005 and
FY2006 only 63% of allocated DAS were used. Even when vessels that did not call in any DAS
at all are removed, the DAS use rate increased to just 72%. Given these use rates, DAS would
have to be reduced by more than 28% before total allocated DAS would become a binding
constraint on all permitted vessels. Of course a reduction of this magnitude would have large
impacts on vessels that have high DAS utilization rates. Under No Action, any vessel whose
current DAS use rate was low would be unaffected since their allocated A DAS under no action
would still be greater than the DAS they used.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

722

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Economic Impacts

Table 274 - Change in Groundfish Trip and Total Trip Revenue by Home Port State
2005-2007
2005-2007
Average
Estimated
Groundfish
Average
Estimated
Change
Groundfish
Total
Trip
Trip
Total
in Total
State
Revenue
Revenue
Revenue
Revenue
Revenue
CT
$471,853
$442,888
-6.1%
$234,954
$205,989
MA
$76,335,101
$68,953,330
-9.7%
$61,075,061 $53,693,291
ME
$18,692,050
$16,704,109
-10.6%
$16,887,629 $14,899,688
NH
$5,260,523
$4,754,542
-9.6%
$4,381,575
$3,875,595
NJ
$6,897,309
$6,668,471
-3.3%
$1,874,151
$1,645,313
NY
$14,307,651
$13,789,798
-3.6%
$4,035,033
$3,517,180
RI
$31,466,190
$30,046,466
-4.5%
$11,430,282 $10,010,558
Other
$4,121,225
$3,987,817
-3.2%
$1,292,992
$1,159,583
Total $157,551,903 $145,347,419
-7.7% $101,211,678 $89,007,195

Change in
Groundfish
Trip
Revenue
-12.3%
-12.1%
-11.8%
-11.5%
-12.2%
-12.8%
-12.4%
-10.3%
-12.1%

Vessel-Level Impacts
The change in total fishing revenue ranged between no change and 18% reduction in total sales.
Just where any given vessel fell within this range depended on DAS use rates as described above
and the vessel owner’s dependence on groundfish trip revenue for total fishing business income
(see Figure 155). Figure 155 plots dependence on groundfish trip income for intervals of 10percentage points on the horizontal x-axis with dependence increasing from left to right.
Similarly, intervals of DAS use rates are plotted on the horizontal y-axis, also increasing from left
to right. The resulting grid shows the possible combinations of dependence and DAS use rates
where the cells of the grid are the calculated average reduction in total fishing revenue for all
values that fall within the use rate/dependence grid. These averages (multiplied by -1 for purposes
of exposition) are plotted on the vertical z-axis. As both dependence and DAS use rates increase
the estimated impact on total revenues increases. The figure also shows that estimated impacts are
very low even at high dependence on groundfish trip income for vessels with low DAS use rates.
Similarly, estimated impacts are also low for vessels with high DAS use rates that have low
dependence on groundfish trip income for total fishing business income.
Across all vessels gross revenues for 34 of the 509 included in the analysis would not change
relative to status quo conditions (Table 275). For purposes of reporting, the remaining vessels
were sorted into four different categories depending upon whether the estimated impact was at or
below the 20th percentile, between the 20th percentile and the median, between the median and
80th percentile, or above the 80th percentile (Table 275). Based on these categories each of the
first and fourth categories represent 20% of affected vessels while the second and third represent
30% of affected vessels. The average estimated adverse impact was then calculated for each
category. Vessels in the 20% of least affected vessel may be expected to lose 2% of total fishing
revenue while, on average, the 20% of most affected vessels may be expected to lose 13% of total
revenue.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

723

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Economic Impacts
Figure 155 - Relationship between groundfish dependence, DAS use rate and average revenue
impact.

0.12

Adverse Total Revenue Impact

0.1

0.08

0.06

0.04

100

0.02
80
60
0

40
0

DAS Use Rate

20
40

Groundfish Dependence

0
90

100

Table 275 - Estimated Impact and Number of Affected Vessels by Impact Category

Impact Category
No Impact
Up to 20th Percentile
20th Percentile to Median
Median to 80th Percentile
Above 80th Percentile

Number of
Vessels
34
95
143
142
95

Average Adverse
Impact
0%
2%
6%
10%
13%

In relative terms, the No Action alternative would have similar impacts among vessels of
different sizes (Table 276). The average adverse impact on total fishing revenue was identical
below the 20th percentile (2%) and above the 80th percentile (13%) for all vessels size classes. At
other intervals the estimated impacts were similar by vessel size class.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

724

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Economic Impacts

Table 276 - Estimated Adverse Impact and Affected Vessels by Vessel Length Class
Less than 50 feet
50 to 70 feet
Over 70 feet
Impact Category
Number Average Number Average Number Average
of
Adverse
of
Adverse
of
Adverse
Vessels
Impact
Vessels
Impact
Vessels
Impact
Up to 20th Percentile
20th Percentile to Median
Median to 80th Percentile
Above 80th Percentile

44
65
65
43

2%
6%
10%
13%

28
40
41
27

2%
5%
10%
13%

25
36
37
24

2%
6%
12%
13%

Among primary gears the relative distribution of adverse impact on total revenue was nearly
identical for vessels using gillnet or trawl gear. However, hook vessels between the 20th percentile
and the median may be expected to have lower revenue reductions (3%) compared to 6%, on
average, for gillnet and trawl vessels. By contrast, the average adverse impact among the most
affected hook vessels (above the 80th percentile) was larger (16%) compared to either gillnet or
trawl gear (13%) (Table 277).
Table 277 - Estimated Adverse Impact and Affected Vessels by Primary Gear
Gillnet
Hook
Impact Category
Number Average Number Average
of
Adverse
of
Adverse
Vessels
Impact
Vessels
Impact
Up to 20th Percentile
20th Percentile to Median
Median to 80th Percentile
Above 80th Percentile

24
34
35
23

1%
6%
10%
13%

4
4
5
3

1%
3%
10%
16%

Trawl
Number Average
of
Adverse
Vessels
Impact
69
103
103
68

2%
6%
11%
13%

The relative distribution of adverse impacts differed between states that border the Gulf of Maine
(Maine, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts) and those that do not (Table 278). At any given
interval, the average adverse impact for vessels with a home port in these Gulf of Maine states
was twice that for other states. For example, the impact for Maine, New Hampshire, and
Massachusetts was between 3 and 5% up to the 20th percentile compared to less than 0.5% to 2%
in all other states. Similarly, home port vessels from Maine, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts
were estimated to lose about 13% of total revenue among vessels above the 80th percentile
compared to an average of 8% for vessels from other home port states. Note that for
confidentiality concerns, impacts on Connecticut home port vessels had to be combined with
Rohde Island home port vessels. Home port state vessels south of New Jersey had to be combined
with New Jersey home port vessels for the same reason.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

725

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Economic Impacts

Table 278 - Estimated Adverse Revenue Impacts and Number of Affected Vessels by Home Port
State
Home Port
Up to 20th
20th
Median to
Above 80th
State
Percentile
Percentile to
80th
Percentile
Median
Percentile

MA
ME
NH
NJ – South
NY
RI & CT
MA
ME
NH
NJ
NY
RI & CT

Number of Vessels
46
69
69
13
19
20
7
10
10
7
9
10
9
13
14
15
21
22
Average Adverse Affect on Total Revenue
3.0%
8.0%
12.0%
5.0%
9.0%
11.0%
5.0%
9.0%
11.0%
0.0%
2.0%
4.0%
1.0%
2.0%
5.0%
2.0%
4.0%
6.0%

46
12
6
6
8
14
14.0%
13.0%
15.0%
7.0%
9.0%
9.0%

As noted previously, vessels with high dependence on groundfish trip revenue may be expected
to be more adversely affected by the No Action alternative than less dependent vessels. This
effect is evident as the estimated average adverse impact of fishing revenue increases with
dependence on groundfish trip revenue (Table 279). For example, the estimated impact on vessels
that depend on groundfish trips for less than 20% of fishing revenue ranged from less than 0.5%
up to the 20th percentile to 2% for vessels above the 80th percentile. By contrast, impacts on
vessels that depend on groundfish for at least 80% of fishing revenue ranged from an average of
9% up to the 20th percentile and 14% above the 80th percentile.
Unlike dependence on groundfish the estimated average impact on total fishing revenue was
nearly identical for each percentile category regardless of the level of gross sales (Table 280). In
each category of gross sales the estimated average adverse change in gross sales ranged from 12% for all vessels up to the 20th percentile to 13-14% for vessels above the 80th percentile.
Among port groups the estimated revenue impacts follow a pattern similar to that of home port
states. That is, impacts on port groups in Maine, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts tended to be
larger than the impacts on vessels from port groups in other states (Table 281). Overall, adverse
impacts on the Portsmouth area and the Scituate-Boston port group were slightly higher for
vessels above the 80th percentile than in other port groups. Note that in most instances the port
groups listed in Table 281 consist of combined port groups due to confidentiality concerns.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

726

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Economic Impacts
Table 279 - Estimated Impacts and Number of Affected Vessels by Dependence on Groundfish Trip
Revenue
Dependence
Up to 20th
20th
Median to
Above 80th
Category
Percentile
Percentile
80th
Percentile
to Median
Percentile

0 to 19%
20 to 39%
40 to 59%
60 to 79%
80 to 100%
0 to 19%
20 to 39%
40 to 59%
60 to 79%
80 to 100%

Number of Vessels
13
18
18
12
16
23
24
15
12
18
18
11
13
20
19
13
43
63
64
42
Average Adverse Affect on Total Revenue
0.0%
1.0%
1.0%
2.0%
2.0%
4.0%
4.0%
5.0%
4.0%
5.0%
7.0%
8.0%
7.0%
8.0%
9.0%
10.0%
9.0%
11.0%
12.0%
14.0%

Table 280 - Estimated Adverse Revenue Impacts and Number of Affected Vessels by Gross Sales
Category

Gross Sales
Category ($1,000)

Less than $90 k
$90 k to $159 k
$160k to $269 k
$270 k to $500 k
More than $500 k
Less than $90 k
$90 k to $159 k
$160k to $269 k
$270 k to $500 k
More than $500 k

Up to 20th
Percentile

20th
Percentile to
Median

Median
to 80th
Percentile

Above 80th
Percentile

Number of Vessels
16
24
24
19
28
28
21
31
32
19
29
28
21
31
31
Average Adverse Affect on Total Revenue
2.0%
6.0%
10.0%
1.0%
6.0%
10.0%
2.0%
6.0%
10.0%
2.0%
6.0%
11.0%
2.0%
6.0%
12.0%

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

727

16
18
20
19
20
14.0%
13.0%
13.0%
13.0%
13.0%

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Economic Impacts

Table 281 - Estimated Adverse Revenue Impacts and Number of Affected Vessels by Port Groups
Port Group
Up to 20th
20th
Median to Above 80th
Percentile
Percentile
80th
Percentile
to Median Percentile

Cape & Islands
Long Island, NY
Gloucester
Mid-Coast Maine
North Shore,
Massachusetts
New Bedford
New Jersey
Other Rhode Island
Point Judith
Portsmouth Area
Scituate - Boston
Portland - So. Maine
Cape & Islands
Long Island, NY
Gloucester
Mid-Coast Maine
North Shore,
Massachusetts
New Bedford
New Jersey
Other Rhode Island
Point Judith
Portsmouth Area
Scituate - Boston
Portland - So. Maine

5
9
17
6
5

Number of Vessels
7
7
13
14
25
25
9
9
7
8

4
8
16
6
4

15
22
22
14
7
9
10
6
6
8
9
5
9
13
14
8
7
10
10
6
6
8
8
5
7
10
11
6
Average Adverse Affect on Total Revenue
1.0%
3.0%
6.0%
11.0%
1.0%
2.0%
5.0%
9.0%
5.0%
10.0%
12.0%
14.0%
5.0%
9.0%
11.0%
13.0%
2.0%
8.0%
11.0%
13.0%
3.0%
0.0%
1.0%
2.0%
5.0%
5.0%
5.0%

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

9.0%
2.0%
4.0%
5.0%
9.0%
10.0%
9.0%

728

12.0%
4.0%
7.0%
6.0%
11.0%
12.0%
11.0%

13.0%
7.0%
9.0%
10.0%
15.0%
15.0%
13.0%

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Economic Impacts

7.5.2.3.1.2

Economic Impacts of Alternative 2a: Differential DAS

Alternative 2a would achieve the conservation objectives of the Proposed Action using
differential DAS and trip limits as the primary management measures. This alternative would also
include the default 18% reduction in DAS as well as a suite of modified trip limits described
previously.
Subsequent to completion of the draft amendment, the Council considered additional DAS
reductions for this alternative in order to modify it to meet pollock rebuilding requirements.
These alternatives modified differential DAS counting areas and considered reducing Category A
DAS by 30 or 35 percent. The revenue impacts shown below do not include these additional
reductions, and therefore understate the actual revenue reductions that would be expected if this
alternative was modified to meet pollock rebuilding objectives.
Aggregate Impacts
Average groundfish trip revenue for the vessels included in the analysis was $101 million during
FY 2005 to FY 2007 and average total revenue was $158 million. Under Alternative 2a the
estimated groundfish trip revenue would decline by 23% to $78 million and total fishing revenue
would decline by 15% to $134 million (Table 282). Among states groundfish trip was estimated
to increase by 1.8% whereas total fishing revenue may increase by 0.5%. This positive change
results from a difference between the how the proposed differential DAS counting area in the
SNE/MA area under Alternative 2a is configured as compared to the present configuration. That
is, the proposed differential counting area no longer would include several high revenue blocks
along the New Jersey coast. These areas are readily accessible to New York and New Jersey
vessels in particular, and counting DAS in these blocks at a rate of 1:1 would more than offset the
default 18% reduction in allocated DAS. In the majority of other states the estimated reduction in
groundfish trip revenue was at least 20% and was nearly 25% in Maine and Massachusetts.
Table 282 - Alternative 2a Change in Groundfish Trip and Total Trip Revenue by Home Port State
State
2005-2007
Estimated
Change in
2005-2007
Estimated
Change in
Average
Total Revenue
Total
Average
Groundfish Groundfish
Total
Revenue
Groundfish
Trip
Trip
Revenue
Trip Revenue
Revenue
Revenue
CT
$471,853
$416,832
-11.7%
$234,954
$179,933
-23.4%
MA
$76,335,101
$61,396,189
-19.6%
$61,075,061 $46,136,150
-24.5%
ME
$18,692,050
$14,507,040
-22.4%
$16,887,629 $12,702,619
-24.8%
NH
$5,260,523
$4,720,298
-10.3%
$4,381,575
$3,841,350
-12.3%
NJ
$6,897,309
$6,930,208
0.5%
$1,874,151
$1,907,050
1.8%
NY
$14,307,651
$13,522,485
-5.5%
$4,035,033
$3,249,867
-19.5%
RI
$31,466,190
$29,092,247
-7.5%
$11,430,282
$9,056,339
-20.8%
Other
$4,121,225
$3,818,747
-7.3%
$1,292,992
$990,514
-23.4%
Total
$157,551,903
$134,404,045
-14.7%
$101,211,678 $78,063,821
-22.9%

Vessel-Level Impacts
A total of 69 vessels were estimated to obtain at least some modest improvement in groundfish
trip income due to a combination of the more favorable change in the Southern New
England/Mid-Atlantic closure area or the higher trip limits for cod in particular. Twenty-one of
these vessels were from either a New Jersey (17) or New York (4) home port. These mid-Atlantic
vessels are likely to have benefited from the reconfigured DAS counting area. The rest of the
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

729

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Economic Impacts

vessels having an estimated positive impact were from Massachusetts (35), Maine (7), and
several other states (6). These vessels may have benefited from the higher trip limits for GOM
and GB cod. Due to the small number of vessels that may experience improved fishing revenue,
the remaining discussion will focus on the vessels that are expected to be adversely affected by
the Proposed Action. The estimated increase in total revenue among vessels that may be expected
to experience a positive change in total revenue averaged 8%. Note that this positive change is
shown in Table 283 as a negative value since positive values denote an adverse affect.
Alternative 2a would have an adverse impact on 440 of the 509 vessels included in the analysis.
Among adversely affected vessels Alternative 2a may be expected to have different impacts
depending on where each vessel may fish and its relative dependence on groundfish trips for total
fishing revenue. At the lower end of the spectrum adverse impacts average 2% for a total of 88
vessels up to the 20th percentile (Table 283). Of the remaining vessels the estimated adverse
impact of total revenue ranged from an average of 8% between the 20th percentile and the median
to 30% for vessels above the 80th percentile.
Table 283 - Alternative 2a Estimated Impact and Number of Affected Vessels by Impact Category
Impact Category
Number of
Average Adverse
Vessels
Impact
No Impact
Up to 20th Percentile
20th Percentile to Median
Median to 80th Percentile
Above 80th Percentile

69
88
132
132
88

-8%
2%
8%
19%
30%

Impacts among vessels of differing sizes tended to be larger for vessels over 70 feet at percentiles
above the 20th (Table 284). For example, large vessels between the 20th percentile and the median
were estimated to lose 13% of fishing revenue compared to 7% and 8% for small (30 to 50 feet)
and medium sized vessels (50 to 70 feet) respectively. At the 80th percentile large vessels were
estimated to lose an average of 33% compared to 29% for medium and 24% for small vessels.
Table 284 - Alternative 2a Estimated Adverse Impact and Affected Vessels by Vessel Length Class
Less than 50 feet
50 to 70 feet
Over 70 feet
Impact Category
Number Average Number Average Number Average
of
Adverse
of
Adverse
of
Adverse
Vessels Impact Vessels
Impact
Vessels Impact
Up to 20th Percentile
20th Percentile to Median
Median to 80th Percentile
Above 80th Percentile

40
60
60
39

2%
7%
14%
24%

25
36
36
24

2%
8%
20%
29%

24
36
36
24

2%
13%
27%
33%

Among primary gears the relative distribution of adverse impact on total revenue varied. Due to
the increased cod trip limits and their higher dependence on cod, adverse impacts on hook gear
vessels may be expected to be lower than other gear types. Average adverse impacts on hook gear
vessels were less than 1% up to the 20th percentile and averaged 4% at the 80th percentile (Table
285). Adverse impacts for gillnet and trawl gear were similar at least up to the median. However,
above the median average adverse impacts on trawl vessels were higher than that of gillnet
vessels.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

730

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Economic Impacts
Table 285 - Alternative 2a Estimated Adverse Impact and Affected Vessels by Primary Gear
Gillnet
Hook
Trawl
Impact Category
Number Average Number Average Number Average
of
Adverse
of
Adverse
of
Adverse
Vessels Impact Vessels Impact Vessels Impact
Up to 20th Percentile
20th Percentile to Median
Median to 80th Percentile
Above 80th Percentile

22
33
33
22

2%
8%
13%
18%

3
3
3
2

0%
1%
2%
4%

64
96
96
63

2%
9%
23%
31%

The adverse impacts on vessels from New York and New Jersey homeports were lower at all
intervals for reasons previously identified. That is, vessels from these home port states tend to be
less dependent on groundfish trip income for total fishing sales and the adverse effect on total
revenue was mitigated by the change in the configuration of the Southern New England/MidAtlantic closure area. For the remaining home port states the distribution of adverse impact on
total revenue was similar in Maine and Massachusetts, although the impacts at intervals above the
median were consistently higher for Massachusetts home port vessels (Table 282).
Table 286 - Alternative 2a Estimated Adverse Revenue Impacts and Number of Affected Vessels by
Home Port State
Home Port
Up to 20th
20th
Median to
Above 80th
State
Percentile
Percentile to
80th
Percentile
Median
Percentile

MA
ME
NH
NJ - South
NY
RI & CT
MA
ME
NH
NJ
NY
RI & CT

Number of Vessels
44
64
65
13
19
19
7
9
10
3
5
4
9
13
13
15
21
21
Average Adverse Affect on Total Revenue
2.0%
11.0%
24.0%
7.0%
15.0%
22.0%
3.0%
8.0%
13.0%
0.0%
1.0%
5.0%
1.0%
2.0%
7.0%
3.0%
7.0%
12.0%

43
12
6
3
8
14
31.0%
30.0%
20.0%
16.0%
20.0%
22.0%

Vessels with high dependence on groundfish trip revenue may be expected to be more adversely
affected by Alternative 2a than less dependent vessels. This effect is evident as the estimated
average adverse impact of fishing revenue increases with dependence on groundfish trip revenue
(Table 287). For example, the estimated impact on vessels that depend on groundfish trips for less
than 20% of fishing revenue ranged from less than 0.5% up to the 20th percentile to 4% for
vessels above the 80th percentile. By contrast, impacts on vessels that depend on groundfish for at
least 80% of fishing revenue ranged from an average of 8% up to the 20th percentile and 33%
above the 80th percentile.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

731

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Economic Impacts

Table 287 - Alternative 2a Estimated Impacts and Number of Affected Vessels by Dependence on
Groundfish Trip Revenue
Median to
Dependence
Up to 20th
20th
Above 80th
Percentile to
80th
Category
Percentile
Percentile
Median
Percentile

0 to 19%
20 to 39%
40 to 59%
60 to 79%
80 to 100%
0 to 19%
20 to 39%
40 to 59%
60 to 79%
80 to 100%

Number of Vessels
11
17
16
14
19
20
11
17
16
12
18
18
41
62
61
Average Adverse Affect on Total Revenue
0.0%
1.0%
2.0%
2.0%
5.0%
7.0%
2.0%
8.0%
12.0%
4.0%
11.0%
18.0%
8.0%
19.0%
27.0%

11
13
11
11
41
4.0%
11.0%
16.0%
23.0%
33.0%

Unlike dependence on groundfish dependence the estimated average impact on total fishing
revenue was similar in most instances for each percentile category regardless of gross sales
(Table 288). In each category of gross sales the estimated average adverse change in gross sales
ranged from 1-3% for all vessels up to the 20th percentile to 25-33% for vessels above the 80th
percentile.
Table 288 - Alternative 2a Estimated Adverse Revenue Impacts and Number of Affected Vessels by
Gross Sales Category
Gross Sales Category
Up to 20th
20th
Median to Above 80th
($1,000)
Percentile
Percentile
80th
Percentile
to Median
Percentile

Less than $90 k
$90 k to $159 k
$160k to $269 k
$270 k to $500 k
More then $500 k
Less than $90 k
$90 k to $159 k
$160k to $269 k
$270 k to $500 k
More then $500 k

Number of Vessels
16
23
24
15
16
24
24
15
19
27
27
18
18
27
27
18
21
30
31
20
Average Adverse Affect on Total Revenue
2.0%
6.0%
15.0%
28.0%
1.0%
7.0%
16.0%
25.0%
2.0%
8.0%
16.0%
26.0%
3.0%
10.0%
22.0%
30.0%
3.0%
10.0%
26.0%
33.0%

Among port groups the estimated revenue impacts follow a pattern similar to that of home port
states. That is, impacts on port groups in Maine, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts tended to be
larger than the impacts on vessels from port groups in other states (Table 289). Overall, adverse
impacts at percentile intervals below the median were highest in the Mid-Coast Maine port group.
Impacts up to the 20th percentile averaged (8%), while adverse impact on total fishing revenue
averaged 17% between the 20th percentile and the median. At higher percentiles the adverse
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

732

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Economic Impacts

impact on the Mid-Coast Maine port group was similar to that of the Gloucester, New Bedford,
Scituate-Boston, and Portland-So Maine port groups.
Table 289 - Alternative 2a Estimated Adverse Revenue Impacts and Number of Affected Vessels by
Port Groups
Port Group
Up to
20th
Median to Above 80th
20th
Percentile
80th
Percentile
Percentile
to Median
Percentile

Number of Vessels
5
6
7
4
9
13
13
8
16
24
24
15
6
9
9
6
5
6
7
4
15
21
21
14
3
5
4
3
6
8
9
5
9
13
13
8
7
9
10
6
5
6
7
4
7
10
10
6
Average Adverse Affect on Total Revenue
1.0%
8.0%
16.0%
28.0%
1.0%
2.0%
7.0%
20.0%
2.0%
11.0%
23.0%
30.0%
8.0%
17.0%
22.0%
30.0%
1.0%
4.0%
8.0%
20.0%
4.0%
20.0%
28.0%
33.0%
0.0%
1.0%
5.0%
16.0%
2.0%
6.0%
11.0%
27.0%
3.0%
7.0%
12.0%
20.0%
3.0%
8.0%
13.0%
20.0%
4.0%
15.0%
26.0%
34.0%
7.0%
14.0%
21.0%
30.0%

7.5.2.3.1.3 Economic Impacts of Alternative 4: DAS Reduction and
Restricted Gear Areas
Alternative 4 reduces category A DAS by 40% from FW42 levels. Most existing regulations
would remain in place with adjustments to many of the present trip limits. Alternative 4 would
also implement a set of gear restricted areas that would prohibit gears that catch either yellowtail
or winter flounders.
As constructed, this alternative would not meet rebuilding objectives for pollock. The revenue
impacts shown below thus understate declines in revenue should the option be modified to meet
pollock rebuilding objectives.
Aggregate Impacts
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

733

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Economic Impacts

Average groundfish trip revenue for the vessels included in the analysis was $101 million during
FY 2005 to FY 2007 and average total revenue was $158 million. Under Alternative 4 the
estimated groundfish trip revenue would decline by 28.9% to $72 million and total fishing
revenue would decline by 18.5% to $128 million (Table 290). The relative reduction in
groundfish trip revenue did not vary substantially among home port states, ranging from less than
26% in New Hampshire to 31% in New York. Reflecting differences in the contribution of
groundfish trip revenue to total revenues on all trips the estimated reduction in total revenue was
at least 22% in Maine, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire, but was 14.8% in Connecticut and
less than 11% in all other states.
Table 290 - Alternative 4 Change in Groundfish Trip and Total Trip Revenue by Home Port State
State
2005-2007
Estimated
Change in
2005-2007
Estimated
Change in
Average
Total Revenue
Total
Average
Groundfish Groundfish
Total
Revenue
Groundfish
Trip
Trip
Revenue
Trip Revenue
Revenue
Revenue
CT
$471,853
$402,111
-14.8%
$234,954
$165,213
-29.7%
MA
$76,335,101
$58,697,416
-23.1%
$61,075,061 $43,437,377
-28.9%
ME
$18,692,050
$13,862,348
-25.8%
$16,887,629 $12,057,927
-28.6%
NH
$5,260,523
$4,103,253
-22.0%
$4,381,575
$3,224,305
-26.4%
NJ
$6,897,309
$6,328,106
-8.3%
$1,874,151
$1,304,948
-30.4%
NY
$14,307,651
$13,054,370
-8.8%
$4,035,033
$2,781,752
-31.1%
RI
$31,466,190
$28,098,049
-10.7%
$11,430,282
$8,062,141
-29.5%
Other
$4,121,225
$3,796,153
-7.9%
$1,292,992
$967,920
-25.1%
Total
$157,551,903
$128,341,808
-18.5%
$101,211,678 $72,001,583
-28.9%

Vessel-Level Impacts
Alternative 4 would have an adverse impact on 493 of the 509 vessels included in the analysis. A
total of 3 vessels were estimated to be unaffected due to low DAS use rates which more than
offset the DAS reduction and the differential DAS counting areas (Table 291). Estimated
revenues would actually increase for 13 vessels from Maine (3) and Massachusetts (10) home
port states by an average of 2%. Note that an increase in revenue shows up as a negative change
in Table 2. For these 13 vessels either the DAS use during the baseline was still less than the
modeled DAS changes and/or the trip limit changes more than offset the reductions in DAS. Of
the 493 vessels that may be expected to experience an adverse impact on total revenue, the
estimated adverse effect ranged from an average of 3% up to the 20th percentile to 31% for
vessels above the 80th percentile. Note that the remaining discussion will focus only on the
majority of vessels that may be expected to be adversely affected by Alternative 4.
Table 291 - Alternative 4 Estimated Impacts and Number of Affected Vessels by Impact Category
Impact Category
Number of
Average Adverse
Vessels
Impact
No Impact
Up to 20th Percentile
20th Percentile to Median
Median to 80th Percentile
Above 80th Percentile

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

16
99
148
148
98

734

-2%
3%
13%
24%
31%

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Economic Impacts

With a few exceptions, Alternative 4 would have similar impacts among vessels of different sizes
(Table 292). The average impact up to the 20th percentile for vessels under 50 feet was higher
(4%) compared to either medium (3%) or large (3%) vessels, but was similar to that of large
vessels or medium vessels at all other intervals. For the most adversely affected vessels (above
the 80th percentile) there was little difference in estimated impact between small (29%), medium
(30%), or large (32%) vessels.
Table 292 - Alternative 4 Estimated Adverse Impact and Affected Vessels by Vessel Length Class
Less than 50 feet
50 to 70 feet
Over 70 feet
Impact Category
Number Average Number Average Number Average
of
Adverse
of
Adverse
of
Adverse
Vessels Impact Vessels
Impact
Vessels Impact
Up to 20th Percentile
20th Percentile to Median
Median to 80th Percentile
Above 80th Percentile

45
67
67
44

4%
14%
22%
29%

30
43
44
29

3%
11%
23%
30%

25
37
38
24

3%
15%
29%
32%

Among primary gears the relative distribution of adverse impacts on total revenue was similar in
most instances. Up to the 20th percentile average impacts ranged between reductions of 2% for
hook gear to 4% for trawl gear (Table 293). Between the 20th percentile and the median hook gear
impacts were about half as much (7%) compared to either gillnet (13%) or trawl gear impacts
(14%). Above the median, gear impacts tended to be larger on trawl vessels than either hook or
gillnet gear.
Table 293 - Alternative 4 Estimated Adverse Impact and Affected Vessels by Primary Gear
Gillnet
Hook
Trawl
Impact Category
Number Average Number Average Number Average
of
Adverse
of
Adverse
of
Adverse
Vessels Impact Vessels Impact Vessels Impact
Up to 20th Percentile
20th Percentile to Median
Median to 80th Percentile
Above 80th Percentile

24
34
35
23

3%
13%
22%
27%

4
4
5
3

2%
7%
19%
30%

73
108
108
72

4%
14%
26%
31%

The adverse impacts on vessels from New York and New Jersey homeports were lower at all
intervals for reasons previously identified. That is, vessels from these home port states tend to be
less dependent on groundfish trip income for total fishing sales. For the remaining home port
states the distribution of adverse impact on total revenue was similar in Maine, Massachusetts and
New Hampshire, although the impacts at intervals below the median were consistently higher for
Maine home port vessels (Table 294). Compared to all other states adverse impact on fishing
revenue for Maine home port vessels was much higher for vessels up to the 20th percentile (12%),
and was higher for vessels between the 20th percentile and the median (21%). At intervals above
the median, the impacts on Maine home port vessels were similar to that of Massachusetts home
port vessels.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

735

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Economic Impacts
Table 294 - Alternative 4 Estimated Adverse Revenue Impacts and Number of Affected Vessels by
Home Port State
Home Port
Up to 20th
20th
Median to
Above 80th
State
Percentile
Percentile to
80th
Percentile
Median
Percentile

MA
ME
NH
NJ - South
NY
RI & CT
MA
ME
NH
NJ
NY
RI & CT

Number of Vessels
48
72
72
13
20
19
7
11
10
7
10
10
10
14
14
15
22
22
Average Adverse Affect on Total Revenue
5.0%
18.0%
27.0%
12.0%
21.0%
26.0%
7.0%
20.0%
24.0%
1.0%
5.0%
10.0%
1.0%
5.0%
11.0%
4.0%
10.0%
16.0%

48
13
7
6
9
14
32.0%
31.0%
32.0%
18.0%
22.0%
24.0%

Vessels with high dependence on groundfish trip revenue may be expected to be more adversely
affected by Alternative 4 than less dependent vessels. This effect is evident as the estimated
average adverse impact of fishing revenue increases with dependence on groundfish trip revenue
(Table 295). For example, the estimated impact on vessels that depend on groundfish trips for less
than 20% of fishing revenue ranged from less than 0.5% up to the 20th percentile to 6% for
vessels above the 80th percentile. By contrast, impacts on vessels that depend on groundfish for at
least 80% of fishing revenue ranged from an average of 18% up to the 20th percentile and 32%
above the 80th percentile.
Table 295 - Alternative 4 Estimated Impacts and Number of Affected Vessels by Dependence on
Groundfish Trip Revenue
Dependence
Up to 20th
20th
Median to
Above 80th
Category
Percentile
Percentile to
80th
Percentile
Median
Percentile

0 to 19%
20 to 39%
40 to 59%
60 to 79%
80 to 100%
0 to 19%
20 to 39%
40 to 59%
60 to 79%
80 to 100%

Number of Vessels
14
19
20
16
24
24
13
18
19
14
20
20
44
66
66
Average Adverse Affect on Total Revenue
0.0%
1.0%
3.0%
6.0%
8.0%
10.0%
9.0%
13.0%
15.0%
14.0%
19.0%
22.0%
18.0%
26.0%
29.0%

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

736

13
15
12
13
43
6.0%
12.0%
18.0%
24.0%
32.0%

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Economic Impacts

Unlike dependence on groundfish dependence the estimated average impact on total fishing
revenue was similar in most instances for each percentile category regardless of gross sales
(Table 296). In each category of gross sales the estimated average adverse change in gross sales
ranged from 3-5% for all vessels up to the 20th percentile to 29-32% for vessels above the 80th
percentile.
Table 296 - Alternative 4 Estimated Adverse Revenue Impacts and Number of Affected Vessels by
Gross Sales Category
Gross Sales Category
Up to 20th
20th
Median to Above 80th
($1,000)
Percentile
Percentile
80th
Percentile
to Median
Percentile

Less than $90 k
$90 k to $159 k
$160k to $269 k
$270 k to $500 k
More then $500 k
Less than $90 k
$90 k to $159 k
$160k to $269 k
$270 k to $500 k
More then $500 k

Number of Vessels
18
27
27
17
19
29
28
19
22
32
33
21
20
29
29
19
21
31
32
20
Average Adverse Affect on Total Revenue
3.0%
13.0%
23.0%
32.0%
3.0%
13.0%
23.0%
29.0%
3.0%
13.0%
22.0%
28.0%
4.0%
14.0%
26.0%
31.0%
5.0%
13.0%
28.0%
32.0%

Among port groups the estimated revenue impacts follow a pattern similar to that of home port
states. That is, impacts on port groups in Maine, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts tended to be
larger than the impacts on vessels from port groups in other states (Table 297). Overall, adverse
impacts at percentile intervals below the median were highest in the port groups of Gloucester,
New Bedford, Scituate-Boston, Portsmouth, Portland, and Mid-Coast Maine port group. In these
port groups, impacts up to the 20th percentile ranged from 7-13%, while average adverse impact
on total fishing revenue ranged from 20-22% between the 20th percentile and the median. Above
the 80th percentile average revenue losses exceeded 30% in the port groups of Gloucester, MidCoast Maine, New Bedford, Portsmouth, Portland, and Scituate-Boston.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

737

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Economic Impacts
Table 297 - Alternative 4 Estimated Adverse Revenue Impacts and Number of Affected Vessels by
Port Groups
Port Group
Up to
20th
Median to Above 80th
20th
Percentile
80th
Percentile
Percentile
to Median
Percentile

Number of Vessels
6
9
9
5
10
14
14
9
17
25
25
16
6
9
9
6
5
8
7
5
15
23
22
15
7
10
10
6
6
8
9
5
9
14
13
9
7
11
10
7
6
8
9
5
7
11
10
7
Average Adverse Affect on Total Revenue
2.0%
8.0%
13.0%
26.0%
1.0%
5.0%
11.0%
22.0%
10.0%
22.0%
28.0%
32.0%
13.0%
22.0%
26.0%
31.0%
3.0%
14.0%
23.0%
29.0%
5.0%
21.0%
29.0%
31.0%
1.0%
5.0%
10.0%
18.0%
3.0%
8.0%
16.0%
27.0%
4.0%
11.0%
15.0%
23.0%
7.0%
20.0%
24.0%
32.0%
7.0%
22.0%
30.0%
33.0%
11.0%
21.0%
26.0%
31.0%

7.5.2.3.1.4 Analysis of Vessel Break-Even DAS in New England
Groundfish
Evaluation of vessel break-even DAS in the New England groundfish fishery was conducted
using data from several sources. A complete description is provided in section 7.5.1.3.1.2.
Alternatives to the Proposed Action
The proposed effort control alternatives will next be discussed in the context of the break-even
analysis. As with the design of the measures, it will be assumed that all vessels choose to use
effort controls and no vessels choose to join sectors.
No Action
The No Action alternative reduces the number of Category A DAS by 18 percent. The expected
baseline allocation of DAS to the fleet is expected to be approximately 36,000 DAS. There are no
changes to trip limits, differential DAS counting areas, or other management measures. Under
this alternative the number of DAS available to the fleet exceeds the number necessary for the
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

738

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Economic Impacts

fleet to break-even. Because DAS cannot be freely exchanged across vessel size classes, there
may still be vessels or groups of vessels that do not have access to enough DAS to break-even.
Option 2A
This option reduces Category A DAS by 18 percent, which should result in a baseline DAS
allocation of about 36,000 DAS. Unlike the No Action alternative, this option expands the use of
differential DAS into almost all areas and increases the differential DAS counting rate in the
inshore GOM and SNE areas. Landing SNE/MA winter flounder is prohibited, as is landing
windowpane flounder. These changes all increase the number of DAS necessary to break-even.
Counter-acting these changes, however, are increases in the trip limits for both cod stocks from
800 lbs./DAS to 2,000 lbs./DAS, increases in the trip limit for CC/GOM yellowtail flounder, and
removal of trip limits for white hake and GB winter flounder. These changes are expected to
increase revenue per DAS and would be expected to reduce the number of DAS necessary to
break-even. Given the interactions between these measures, it is difficult to determine if this
option will have sufficient DAS available for all vessels to break-even. Because DAS cannot be
freely exchanged across vessel size classes, even though there may be enough DAS for the active
vessels as a whole to break even, there are likely to be vessels or groups of vessels that do not
have access to enough DAS to break-even.

Option 4
This option reduces Category A DAS by 40 percent and is expected to result in about 26,400
allocated baseline DAS. There are no modifications to the differential DAS counting areas. The
GOM cod trip limit increases to 2,000 lbs./DAS, while the GB cod trip limit remains at 1,000
lbs./DAS. Trip limits for GB winter flounder and white hake are eliminated, the initial GB
yellowtail flounder trip limit is set at 10,000 lbs./trip, and the landing of SNE/MA winter flounder
and windowpane flounders are prohibited. The trip limit changes may increase the contribution
margin per DAS for vessels fishing in the GOM and GB but not in SNE. Two restricted gear
areas are adopted but the impacts on break-even requirements are uncertain.
Under this option there are not enough DAS for the fleet to break-even unless contribution
margins per DAS increase by about twenty-nine percent (the difference between the DAS
allocated and the DAS needed to break-even). While the trip limit changes may foster this
increase for vessels that fish in the GOM and GB, it is unlikely that the same increase will occur
in the SNE area. Because DAS cannot be freely exchanged across vessel size classes, there are
likely to be vessels or groups of vessels that do not have access to enough DAS to break-even.
Mitigating Factors
As discussed in section 7.5.1.3.1.2, there are at least two mitigating factors. Carry-over DAS in
the first year of implementation of Amendment 16 there are likely reduce the gap between DAS
allocated and the number needed to break-even by 6,000 – 7,000 DAS. The other source of
groundfish DAS is Category B DAS that can be used in special management programs.

7.5.2.3.1.5

GOM Haddock Sink Gillnet Pilot Program

The Proposed Action, Option 2, is designed to facilitate targeting of GOM haddock by sink
gillnet vessels. This opportunity would not exist under the No Action option and sink gillnet
vessels would not be provided an opportunity to benefit from the recovery of haddock. Under No
Action, sink gillnet vessels would not have increased access to GOM haddock and haddock
revenues would be expected to be lower.
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

739

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Economic Impacts

7.5.2.3.1.6

Haddock Minimum Size

The No Action option maintains the 19 inch minimum size for haddock. Recent reductions in
haddock growth rates mean that it has been taking longer for recruits to grow into a legal size,
particularly for the 2003 year class of GB haddock. In the meantime these under-sized fish are
subject to natural mortality (as well as discard mortality) that would otherwise have been
marketable fish. As a result yield is lost

7.5.2.3.2 Recreational Management Measures

7.5.2.3.2.1

Provisions for Landing Fillets

Option 1 – This option would allow anglers to land groundfish as fillets with the skin off. Many
recreational anglers may prefer to be able to fillet fish at-sea. This may be particularly
advantageous to party/charter passengers because many passengers may not know how to fillet
fish themselves and the filleting of fish is a paid service provided by crew. Filleting fish at-sea
also enables passengers to disembark and return home immediately without having to wait for
fish to be filleted at the dock. Private boat anglers may also prefer to fillet fish at-sea because
fillets are easier to store and it eases disposal of carcasses and waste.
To the extent anglers do prefer the ability to fillet fish at sea the recreational experience would be
enhanced. This would result in an increase in the economic value of recreational fishing for
groundfish. The magnitude of any such increase in economic value is unknown, but would
depend on the strength of preference for at-sea filleting of groundfish.
All other things being equal, as long as anglers prefer to fillet fish at-sea then removal of this
prohibition would enhance the economic value of the recreational fishing experience. However,
filleting fish at-sea does not make the fish available for biological sampling or species verification
through the MRIP, and would complicate enforcement of existing size and bag limit regulations.
The former may contribute to elevated biological uncertainty for stocks that include recreational
catch in assessments, while the latter may lead to elevated management uncertainty. Under the
proposed process for setting ABCs and ACLs any source of elevated biological uncertainty may
result in lower ABCs and any source of management uncertainty may result in lower ACL. The
extent to which changing the prohibition on filleting groundfish at sea may affect either biological
or management uncertainty is unknown, but may be presumed to depend on the relative
contribution of recreational and commercial sources of fishing mortality.
If removing the prohibition on landing fillets with skin-off does result in some increased
biological or management uncertainty then the increase in economic value associated with being
able to fillet fish at sea would need to be weighed against the forgone economic value associated
with lower ACL. The economic implications of this tradeoff would also need to consider angler
preferences for accountability measures such as changes to bag limits, size limits, or seasonal
closures.
Option 3 (No Action) would maintain the requirement that fillets be landed with skin-on. To the
extent recreational anglers prefer to fillet fish at-sea, this measure would reduce the benefits of
the recreational fishing experience compared to the other alternatives. It may also result in lower
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

740

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Economic Impacts

incomes for crew on party-charter vessels since they would not be able to charge for filleting fish
at-sea and some passengers may be reluctant to wait at the dock for this service at the end of a
trip.

7.5.2.3.2.2

Removal of the Limit on Hooks

Under the No Action alternative, the limit on the number of hooks that can be used by
recreational anglers would remain in place. There may be some lowered economic benefits when
compared to the Proposed Action, since catch rates may be lower and some trips targeting other
species may be forced to discard groundfish caught incidentally.

7.5.2.3.2.3

Measures to Reduce Mortality

GOM Cod - Based on the evaluation of biological impacts the economic impacts may greatest for
Option 3, followed by Option 1, then by Option 2. This ordering of impacts is strictly based on
the magnitude of the estimated reductions of harvested GOM cod. However, this assumes that
recreational anglers are indifferent between the types of management measures that may be
available. As noted above, groundfish recreational fishing value may depend primarily on the
expectation for keeping fish. If this is the case, then recreational anglers may prefer a change in
the size limit to a change in the bag limit since even though the former may reduce the probability
that enough fish will be caught to meet the bag limit, there is always the possibility that they will.
By contrast, lowering the bag limit reduces the number of fish that may be retained which lowers
trip expectations even though on the bag limit may not be reached on a majority of trips. If this
preference ordering does reflect groundfish anglers’ valuation then the ordinal ranking economic
impacts of recreational options for GOM cod may be reversed for Option 1 and Option 2.
GOM Haddock – Harvested GOM haddock would be reduced most under Option 3 followed by
Option 2 and Option 3. Based on estimated reductions in harvest alone, the ordinal ranking in
terms of economic impacts would match that of the biological impacts. Whether this would
reflect recreational fishing preferences is uncertain. As suggested above, anglers may place higher
value on increasing the size limit since Option 1 would not include a bag limit. However,
haddock do not get as large as cod so the probability of catching and being able to keep a legal
sized fish would go down so much that anglers may prefer a bag limit to a higher size limit. That
is, recreational fishing preferences are not likely to be strictly hierarchical. There are more likely
to be tradeoffs between bag and size limits that complicate assessment of economic impacts in the
absence of specialized surveys to elicit these tradeoffs.

7.5.2.3.3 Atlantic Halibut Minimum Size
Option 1 (No Action) maintains the current minimum size for halibut. Total U.S. commercial
halibut landings in recent years have been between 11 and 22 mt and the landed value ranged
from about $96,000 in CY 2004 to $232,000 in CY 2007. Not all landings have been above the
minimum size; GARM III estimated that the mean length of landings was 90.5 cm, less than the
minimum legal size of 91 cm.

7.5.2.3.4 Prohibition on Retention of Atlantic Wolffish
Option 1 (No Action) will continue to allow the landing of Atlantic wolffish in the commercial
and recreational fisheries. Atlantic wolffish commercial landings steadily increased throughout
the 19702 and early 1980s, peaking at 1,100 mt in CY 1983. Landings declined through the mid
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

741

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Economic Impacts

and late 1980s and 1990s and were 243 mt in 1999. Landings continued to decline through CY
2007, reaching a time series low of 63 mt. Landed revenues were less than $150,000 since CY
2004, with a recent low of only $101,000 in CY 2007. Unlike Atlantic halibut, wolffish is
targeted to some extent by recreational anglers. During 2006 – 2007 a total of 56 anglers
intercepted through the MRIP at fishing sites in Massachusetts and New Hampshire reported
wolffish as a target species. All of these anglers were intercepted on party/charter trips and no
private boat anglers reported targeting wolffish. Based on MRIP statistical procedures these data
result in an expanded estimate of 1,644 targeted of nearly one million total trips. Under No
Action, this level of recreational activity would be expected to continue.

7.5.2.3.5 Implementation of Additional Sectors/Modifications to Existing
Sectors
This action proposes modifying the two existing sectors and implementing seventeen additional
sectors. Determining the economic impacts of these changes is difficult. If the No Action
alternative is selected and additional sectors are not implemented, the benefits described above
(see section 7.5.1.3.5) will not accrue to the vessels interested in joining sectors. At the same
time, the costs of increased reporting and administrative requirements will not be incurred. It is
likely that the inefficiencies of the effort control system would continue to restrain the
profitability of the fishery.

7.5.2.3.6 Accountability Measures
There are several options for implementing AMs for the commercial and recreational components
of the fishery. In addition, there are elements of the sector administration measures that are AMs;
the impacts of these measures are indistinguishable from the general sector impacts and ill not be
discussed further on this section.
Over the long-term the implementation of effective AMs would be expected to contribute to
rebuilding of groundfish stocks as biological objectives are achieved. This would be expected to
increase the revenues for the commercial fishery and the recreational harvest as fishermen benefit
from stock rebuilding. Specific AMs could have different economic impacts.

7.5.2.3.6.1 Common Pool Accountability Measure Alternative 1 – Hard
TAC
This alternative overlays a hard TAC AM system over the effort controls for those vessels that do
not choose to join sectors. The hard TAC system proposed is similar to one considered in
Amendment 13. The ACL for each groundfish stock is distributed across trimesters. When
approached, groundfish fishing is ended in much of the stock area with gear that catches that
stock.
The ACL is not allocated to each individual vessel and in many respects can be considered a
global TAC. Potential adverse economic impacts of global TAC systems have been well
documented. Morgan (1997) summarized findings from several other studies and concluded that
these systems often “produce excess capacity, poor stock conservation, and reduced profitability.”
He identified the following reasons for these results:
•

Increased competition among operators

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

742

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Economic Impacts

•
•
•

Difficulties of enforcement of the TACs, particularly in multispecies fisheries and if
the management system is designed without consideration of harvesting practices
Inappropriate TACs, a broad reason that includes adopting TACs in fisheries where
they are not appropriate, setting TACs with inadequate data, political manipulation of
proposed TACs, and lack of structure in recommended TACs.
Inappropriate institutional arrangements that do not include industry support for
management arrangements.

Of these four reasons, the two that are most likely to be applicable to this fishery are the first two.
The increased competition between operators can result in a race to fish as individual fishermen
attempt to catch as much of the TAC as possible before fishing is prohibited for a particular stock.
This leads to the dissipation of profits, development of excess capacity in the fishery, and
fluctuations in supply
There are elements of the management plan that may slow this response, but they are unlikely to
eliminate it. For example, the effort control systems proposed limit total effort (DAS) available to
individual vessels, incorporate trip limit that limit what can be landed on each individual trip, and
adopt closures that limit fishing opportunities in some of the time and places that catch rates are
expected to be high. This might help slow the race to fish. The hard TAC system also includes
some attempts to reduce the incentive for this activity. By splitting the TAC into three trimesters,
fisherman are certain of at least a limited opportunity to fish over the course of the year and do
not need to be as concerned that if they don’t fish as hard as possible at the beginning of the year
they will lose all opportunities. While it is often said that dividing the TAC into periods just
creates multiple races to fish rather than just one, there may be some benefit in doing so to extend
availability of fish to fishermen and the market.
The second reason that may apply is difficulty in enforcing the TACs. The possibility that a TAC
may be approached and result in closing the fishery can lead to discarding and illegal unreported
landings of catch. The AM proposed attempts to address these concerns by increasing the
reporting and monitoring requirements. All landings must be witnessed through a weighmaster
system in this option.
While there is no guarantee that TACs in this AM will be set at appropriate levels there are
mechanisms in place that should prevent some of the problems in setting appropriate TACs that
were identified by Morgan (1997). Recent M-S Act changes require that ACLs cannot be set
higher than the ABC recommendation of the Council’s SSC. This makes it unlikely that they will
be set contrary to scientific advice, though it is possible that the TACs may be exceeded if they
are not adequately monitored. It is not clear if there is industry support for this AM and that could
lead to the problems cited by Morgan.
Stefansson and Rosenberg (2005), on the other hand, conducted a simulation study of the
effectiveness of quota systems, effort control systems, and MPAs when used independently and
when used in concert. Their study also considered how well these systems would work in the face
of uncertainty. While the study focused on a theoretical single-species fishery, their conclusion
was that there are clear economic benefits to combining systems to rebuild stocks. The economic
benefits are a result of a greater likelihood of long-term sustainability. This is in essence what the
effort control measures (which include both effort limits and closures that have some of the
characteristics of MPAs) and this AM would do. This study did not explicitly model behavioral
changes (such as the race to fish) that can result from the imposition of quotas.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

743

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Economic Impacts

One of the very practical economic impacts of this AM is that it creates additional uncertainty for
fishermen attempting to develop a business plan. Fishermen will have difficulty evaluating if or
when an area may be closed to groundfish fishing, particularly in the first year of implementation.
The closures may disrupt the market and result in fluctuating prices. This system also imposes
additional costs on common pool fishermen as they are responsible for dockside monitoring costs.
Unlike sectors, they remain subject to the inefficiencies of the effort control system and thus are
limited in their ability to modify behavior to increase profits and absorb the increased reporting
costs.
This proposed AM also imposes a significant administrative burden on NMFS. There is the
potential that trimester TACs will need to be monitored for all twenty groundfish stocks, though
initially TACs will not be monitored for stocks that cannot be landed. Monitoring the TACs and
announcing openings and closures of the fishery creates an extensive burden that is in addition to
the considerable burden of monitoring the effort control system and sectors. This system may also
increase the need for enforcement resources to prevent illegal or unreported landings.

7.5.2.3.6.2 Common Pool Accountability Measures Alternative 2 –
Differential DAS
This alternative adjusts DAS counting based on whether ACLs are exceeded or not. The
adjustment occurs in the year after catch is compared to the ACL. Adjustments are applied to a
stock area rather than the fishery as a whole, and are based on the maximum overage of an ACL
for stocks in the area. The mixed stock exception will be considered when determining the
differential DAS adjustment. While AMs are usually considered solely in the context of overages
of the ACL, this particular AM allows for the possibility that catches will fall short of the ACLs
and allows for an increase in fishing effort as a result.
The economic impacts of this AM are difficult to predict. Generally, increasing the differential
DAS rate throughout the fishery as a result of an ACL overage would reduce the number of DAS
available to the fishery and make it more difficult for groundfish fishing vessels to recover fixed
costs. If the differential DAS rate is reduced because catches are below ACLs for all stocks, the
opposite occurs: more DAS become available and revenues and profits would be expected to
increase. These broad impacts may not actually occur, however, as the measure is constructed so
that it is possible differential DAS adjustments may occur in specific stock areas rather than
throughout the fishery as a whole. Changes in differential DAS counting in one area and not
another may result in effort shifts that not only modify the expected biological impacts of the
measure but could alter the economic impacts. Increased fishing that results from changes in
differential DAS counting might depress prices and reduce revenues. The only way to analyze
these impacts would be to run the CAM for an infinite number of possible differential DAS
changes, clearly an impossible task.
One advantage to this approach is that because it does not make in-season changes to
management measures it helps facilitate business planning by fishermen. The measure is designed
so that the differential DAS changes are expected to be announced prior to or at the start of a
fishing year, which will allow fishermen at least some opportunity to plan activity for the year.
This should minimize any race to fish that might result from in-season adjustments. A
disadvantage is that adjusting DAS counting is, like many effort controls, a blunt instrument that
cannot effectively target particular problem stocks. It is possible that an adjustment will be
triggered by an ACL overage for a minor stock; this will reduce yields for all stocks caught in the
area, even those that are healthy. Fishermen that may not even catch a stock may have DAS
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

744

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Economic Impacts

reduced for an overage that they did not contribute to. For example, an overage of a flounder
stock will reduce fishing effort for longline gear that has little or no interaction with the stock.
This option also proposes that if an ACL is exceeded an analysis will be done to determine if the
mixed stock exception is applicable and if so it will be applied. While not stated, the implication
is that there may be instances where a differential DAS adjustment is not made or a smaller
increase in DAS counting is made because overfishing is allowed to occur on a stock or stocks.
The justification for this provision is that it provides some flexibility to maximize overall yield
from the fishery rather than hold the fishery hostage to the weakest stock. If invoked, this
provision would be expected to increase revenues for non-sector vessels.
If non-sector vessels are allowed to exceed the ACL with reduced consequences this could have
implications for sector participants and the recreational fishery. Sector catches are bound by the
ACE allocated to the sector; if there is an overage remaining after any transfers of ACE between
sectors, the sector is held accountable for the overage and must pay back the overage in the year
immediately following. There are no provisions for sectors to invoke the mixed stock exception
and reduce or eliminate the payback provision, as is being proposed for non-sector vessels. There
is no provision for recreational fishing vessels to be exempt from an AM because of the mixed
stock exception. Not only does this raise an equity concern, but it could create incentives for nonsector fishing vessels to be less concerned about remaining within the ACL. Over the long-term,
if overfishing is allowed to continue by non-sector vessels it is possible that stock size will be
smaller than if overfishing was ended and as a result the ACL will be smaller, reducing the ACE
available to sector participants and the recreational fishery. This provision also seems to conflict
with the ACL concept that to the extent possible an overage by one component should not affect
the ACL available for other components.

7.5.2.3.6.3

Recreational Fishery Accountability Measures

There are three options to the Proposed Action for recreational fishery accountability measures.
The options are similar in design and differ primarily in the process for implementation and the
precedence given in the selection of AMs.
Option 1 requires the Council to review recreational harvest and provide recommendations to
NMFS for AMs. This provides an opportunity for any AMs to be coordinated with the state
directors whose recreational industries are affected by the changes. AMs will be either change in
seasons, minimum size limits, or bag limits, and may be different for the recreational and
party/charter components of the fishery. The measure proposes that if there is an overage in
fishing year 1 (which ends in April), the adjustment will be announced approximately nine
months later in January. This was designed so that any regulatory changes are known before
party/charter operators begin booking reservations for the season that starts in spring. It also
allows for correction of any overage to begin at the end of the year following the year of the
overage.
The requirement for the Council to review harvests and develop a recommendation to NMFS
calls into question whether the AMs can be announced by January. The Council typically does
not meet in July and August. This means a recommendation will not be provided to NMFS prior
to late September. APA requirements create doubt whether the NMFS can make a decision on the
AM and publish the change prior to January. This means that party/charter operators may begin
accepting reservations without knowing the regulations. Customers may be less willing to pay in
advance for reservations if they are uncertain what will be in place. Part of this problem could be
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

745

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Social Impacts

mitigated if NMFS were certain to accept Council recommendations: since much recreational
enforcement is performed by state agencies, states could announce and implement the changes
even if the federal process had not been completed. But it is not certain that this will occur, as
NMFS must determine the Council’s recommendations comply with applicable law. States will
no doubt be reluctant to modify their regulations before knowing the final NMFS decision.
Generally, minimum size limits and bag limits a less effective at adjusting recreational fishing
mortality than changes in season. These two measures affect what can be retained but do little to
change what is caught. In addition, there is evidence that compliance with these regulations is
imperfect. As a result, these measures will probably need to be in place for an extended period to
account for overages of the ACL. Relatively short changes in season can rapidly modify harvest
but party/charter operators fear that these changes are more damaging to their businesses.
Option 2 is similar to Option 1 but removes the requirement that the Council provide a
recommendation to NMFS. It also gives precedence to a change in season as the preferred AM.
By removing the requirement that the Council provide a recommendation to NMFS, it is more
likely that the AMs will be announced before party/charter operators begin accepting reservations
in late winter. This should facilitate their marketing operations and customers will be bale to
make an informed decision when booking trips. Using a change in season as the preferred AM
means that the AM will probably be in place for a shorter period of time.
Regardless which option was selected, the imposition of AMs would have economic impacts on
the recreational fishery. Changes in bag limits and minimum sizes typically reduce the catch that
can be landed. With respect to the party/charter fishery, groundfish fishing is primarily a meat
fishery and customers may value a trip based on the potential landings rather than the likely
landings. Large minimum sizes or low bag limits reduce the potential landings and devalue the
trip. In a similar way, changes in season may deter customers from fishing if the perception is that
the seasons with the best fishing opportunities are not available. There is however evidence that
changes in regulations for one species can be compensated by increased targeting of a different
species.
Under the No Action alternative, AMs would not be adopted. While this avoids the economic
impacts of AMs in the short –term, this may make it less likely that mortality objectives are
achieved and could result in more stringent measures in the future.

7.6

Social Impacts

The need to assess social impacts emanating from federally mandated fishing regulations stems
from National Environmental Protection Agency (NEPA) and M-S Act mandates that the social
impacts of management measures be evaluated. NEPA requires the evaluation of social and
economic impacts in addition to the consideration of environmental impacts. National Standard 8
of the M-S Act demands that “Conservation and management measures shall, consistent with the
conservation requirements of this Act (including the prevention of over fishing and rebuilding of
overfished stocks), take into account the importance of fishery resources to fishing communities
in order to (A) provide for the sustained participation of such communities, and (B) to the extent
practicable, minimize adverse economic impacts on such communities” (16 U.S.C. §1851(2)(8)).
The analysis that follows provides a context for understanding possible social impacts resulting
from the proposed measures in Amendment 16.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

746

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Social Impacts

It is important to note that the current interpretation of National Standard 8 requires the Council
to consider the importance of fishery resources to affected communities and provide those
communities with continuing access to fishery resources, but it does not allow the Council to
compromise the conservation objectives of the management measures. Sustained participation is
interpreted as continued access to the fishery within the constraints of the condition of the
resource. The long-term conservation and rebuilding of stocks often require that limits be placed
on particular gears and/or the harvest of specific stocks. Thus, the law interprets National
Standard 8 only as a consideration of continued overall access to fishery resources and not as a
guarantee that fishermen will be able to use a particular gear type, harvest a particular species of
fish, fish in a particular area, or fish during a certain time of the year.
A fundamental difficulty exists in attributing social change to specific factors such as
management regulations when communities or other societal groups are constantly evolving in
response to numerous additional external factors, such as market conditions and technology.
Increasingly important influences in coastal communities include demands for recreational uses
of the waterfront and tourism (these influences are referred to as gentrification in the MARFIN
Report). Certainly, management regulations influence the direction and magnitude of social
change, but attribution is difficult with the tools and data available. Attribution is particularly
difficult considering the dynamic and fluid nature of fishing communities. As a result, while this
assessment focuses generally on the social impacts of the proposed fishing regulations, it is
recognized that external factors are also influencing change, both positive and negative, in the
affected communities. In many cases, these factors contribute to a community’s vulnerability and
ability to adapt to new or different fishing regulations.
Amendment 13 identified five social impact factors: regulatory discarding, safety, disruption in
daily living, changes in occupational opportunities and community infrastructure, and formation
of attitudes. All of these factors can be affected by changes in management measures. Fishermen
find regulatory discarding both distasteful and wasteful of valuable fishery resources.
Modifications to daily routines can make long-term planning difficult. New gear requirements
such as netting and some equipment must be ordered months in advance resulting in changes to
daily routines when these modifications cannot be met in a time and cost efficient manner.
Further the cost of making such changes may prove to be a burden for some vessel owners.
Changes in management measures that limit access to fishing may increase the likelihood of
safety risks. Increased risk can result when fishermen spend longer periods at sea in order to
minimize steam time to and from fishing grounds, operate with fewer crew, and fish in poor
weather conditions. Formation of attitudes refers to the positive or negative feelings or beliefs
expressed by members of the communities that will be affected by the Proposed Action. The
effect of the Proposed Action on these factors, if any, will be discussed below.
Amendment 13 also identified primary and secondary port groups that are most affected by
changes in groundfish management. It not likely that this action would affect all of these port
groups to the same extent. Those port groups that are more dependent on groundfish would likely
have more social impacts than those that participate in a range of fisheries. Even among
communities with similar dependence on groundfish, there are likely to be different impacts since
some measures have localized impacts. The following discussion will also highlight the
differences between port groups.

7.6.1 Scale of Assessment – Fishing Communities
Section 316 of Magnuson-Stevens Act defines a fishing community as: a community which is
substantially dependent on or substantially engaged in the harvesting or processing of fishery
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

747

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Social Impacts

resources to meet social and economic needs, and includes fishing vessel owners, operators, and
crew and United States fish processors that are based in such community.
As discussed in the Affected Human Environment, there are a number of issues involved in
whether a port meets National Standard 8’s legal definition of a fishing community. But fishery
impact statements, such as the social impact analysis, must examine the impacts to all the
participants, including all communities and other groups that participate in the fishery. Thus for
the purposes of this social and community impact assessment, the primary and secondary port
groups identified and described in the Affected Human Environment (section 9.4.5) will serve as
the primary scale of measurement. Primary groups are those communities that are currently most
substantially engaged in the groundfish fishery. For the most part, primary groups are fishing
communities that are likely to be the most significantly and directly impacted by Amendment 13
management measures, and the analysis of impacts on them speaks to the analytical requirements
of National Standard 8. However, the impacts of Amendment 13 are predicted to be large in
scale, affecting most ports engaged in the groundfish fishery. This assessment, therefore, has
sought to gain a wide perspective on the magnitude and extent of the impacts of the alternatives
under consideration. Thus the analysis also considers Secondary groups, which are those ports
that currently may not be substantially involved in or dependent on the groundfish fishery but
have demonstrated some participation in the groundfish fishery since the 1994 fishing year
(FY94). They also may consist of places that were historically more involved in the groundfish
fishery, but are not recently for many reasons (loss of nearshore fishery, concentration of fishery
in larger ports, external factors, etc.).
Current guidance on National Standard 8 defines a community as a town or city, a geographic
unit which might fit the Census Bureau’s definition of a “place.” But it is important to note that
fishing communities are not bounded or separated from the commerce and institutional apparatus
of the larger cities and towns in which they are located. In fact, most fishing communities rely on
a rather complicated network of business and social ties that extend well beyond their geographic
boundaries and often into other communities in the region. The grouping of communities in this
assessment and the socioeconomic context provided by the IMPLAN model allows for some
consideration of the interconnected nature of ports and communities when predicting the impacts
of Amendment 16. Moreover, because the size and diversity of the groundfish fishery makes it
impractical to consider impacts on each secondary port individually, their grouping with other
secondary ports in the same county or geographically adjacent counties has been done
consistently with the regions analyzed using the IMPLAN model (see section 5.4.6), so that it can
be used to better characterize the impacts on these community groups.
When predicting social impacts of management measures, it is important to consider impacts on
the following, which will be discussed to the extent possible in the following sections:
• the fishing fleet (vessels grouped by fishery, primary gear type, and/or size);
• boat owners and captains;
• crew;
• fish buyers (dealers);
• seafood markets;
• community cooperatives;
• fishing industry associations;
• cultural components of the community;
• fishing families.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

748

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Social Impacts

7.6.2 Communities of Interest
The communities that are likely to experience significant impacts from the alternatives under
consideration include those with at least one of the following characteristics:
•
•

an active and large multispecies fishing fleet,
vessels and shoreside facilities that currently depend on groundfish for a substantial
portion of their business,
• geographically close to areas proposed for additional seasonal or year-round closure, and
• vessels that hold a substantial amount of latent effort (inactive DAS).
The above criteria probably qualify nearly 40 primary community and secondary port groups
throughout the management area. Because it is not practical to identify all of these groups as
communities of interest for this assessment, the following groups have been chosen to represent
the diversity, scale, and extent of those involved in the groundfish fishery. Inferences can be
drawn about social impacts on other port groups based on the information presented in the
Affected Human Environment and the likely distribution of other predicted impacts. All primary
community groups have been identified as communities of interest for this assessment.
Primary Community Groups
1. Portland, Maine
2. Portsmouth, New Hampshire
3. Gloucester, Massachusetts
4. Boston, Massachusetts
5. Chatham/Harwichport, Massachusetts
6. New Bedford/Fairhaven, Massachusetts
7. Point Judith, Rhode Island
8. Eastern Long Island, New York
Secondary Community Groups
9. Upper Mid-Coast 1, Maine
10. Lower Mid-Coast 1, Maine
11. NH Seacoast
12. South Shore, Massachusetts
13. Provincetown, Massachusetts
14. Eastern Rhode Island
15. Northern Coastal New Jersey
It is important, however, to consider the impacts of the proposed alternatives across all
communities. Social impacts can be defined as the changes that a fisheries management action
may create in people’s way of life (how they live, work, play, and interact), people’s cultural
traditions (shared beliefs, customs, and values), and people’s community (population structure,
cohesion, stability, and character). As such, social impacts may result from changes in flexibility,
opportunity, stability, certainty, safety, and other factors that are not specific to any community,
but oftentimes to any individual or entity experiencing changes resulting from a fishing
regulation.
It is possible that the social impacts of some measures under consideration will not be
experienced solely by one community group or another; rather, it is likely that some impacts will
be experienced across communities, gear sectors, and vessel size classes. An example of this
would be a reduction in allocated DAS if it is applied to all multispecies permit holders. Another
example would be a mesh restriction for otter trawl vessels. While extra consideration is given to
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

749

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Social Impacts

the communities of interest for this framework, the potential social impacts of the measures under
consideration are discussed generally in this assessment so that their impacts across communities
can be understood more clearly.
Brief descriptions of the communities of interest are in the Affected Environment (section 6.2.8).

7.6.3 Social Impact Analysis Factors
To the extent possible, the social impact factors described in the following subsections will be
considered relative to the management alternatives under consideration and will be used as a basis
for comparison between alternatives. Use of these kinds of factors in social impact assessment is
discussed in Burdge’s Conceptual Approach to Social Impact Assessment (Burdge 1998).
A significant amount of information relating to the factors described below was collected during
the Council’s Social Impact Informational Meetings during the development of Amendment 13,
and can be found in the Report from those meetings. The information collected at these meetings
formed the basis for selecting the following factors. While this assessment does not quantify the
impacts of the management measures relative to the individual factors, qualitative discussion of
the potential changes to the factors characterizes the likely direction and magnitude of the
impacts. Assessment of the potential changes to the social impact assessment factors also should
be considered in the following context:
1. Size and demographic characteristics of the fishery workforce in the community –changes in
these factors reflect demographic, income, and employment impacts in relation to the
community’s available fishery workforce
2. Cultural issues – attitudes, beliefs, values of fishermen, their families, and their communities
3. Social structure and organization – the ability of communities to provide necessary social
support and services to families
4. Non-economic social aspects – lifestyle, health, and safety issues
5. Historical dependence on fishery – reflected in the structure of fishing practices and income
distribution
The following five social impact factors are described below: regulatory discarding; safety;
disruption in daily living; changes in occupational opportunities and community infrastructure;
and formation of attitudes. Discussion of these factors below also includes important information
related to cumulative impacts and the social impacts of the alternatives under consideration in this
amendment. The discussions also highlight comments received at the Amendment 13
informational meetings. When reviewing these comments, it must be remembered that the
meetings occurred before Amendment 13 and FW 42 under a different management regime and
some concerns raised at the meetings may not have been realized.

7.6.3.1

Regulatory Discarding

Description: forced discarding of marketable and oftentimes dead fish as a direct result of
management measures; usually a byproduct of trip limits, quotas, and minimum fish sizes
Regulatory discarding is an important social problem, just as it is an ecological problem. Low trip
limits resulting in excessive discarding leave fishermen feeling demoralized and disgusted with
fishing, which is more than just a job to most fishermen. Fishermen recognize that discarding
marketable and oftentimes dead fish does nothing to benefit them or their families, the health of
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

750

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Social Impacts

the resource, their disappearing hold on local fresh fish markets, or seafood consumers. Fishing is
a family business, so the impacts of this are felt throughout the entire family and the entire
community involved in groundfish harvesting.
Discussion: Although regulatory discarding has been identified as a social problem in most
communities involved in groundfish fishing throughout the region, the inshore Gulf of Maine
groundfish fleet in particular has struggled with low Gulf of Maine cod daily trip limits and the
negative social impacts of regulatory discarding since the 1999 fishing year. At the groundfish
Social Impact Informational Meetings, many residents of Portsmouth NH, the NH Seacoast,
Gloucester, and South Shore MA communities cited low Gulf of Maine cod trip limits as having
resulted in the most significant social impacts for their respective communities since the
implementation of Amendment 5. Fishing fleets in these communities consist primarily of smaller
and mid-size vessels that fish short trips (<2 days) in inshore areas. Many of these vessels do not
have the capability to travel safely to other areas to fish. They are therefore limited to areas that
unfortunately contain concentrations of codfish, so they sometimes encounter significant amounts
of cod even when fishing for other species.
The multispecies nature of the groundfish fishery and the physical limitations of the inshore fleet
have exacerbated the problems associated with regulatory discarding in these areas. Some of the
affected boats have reported that this problem is further worsened by the timing of the inshore
rolling closures and the pulses of concentrated effort in the inshore areas during the limited
opportunities in the spring and early summer for smaller vessels to fish. In addition, the
cumulative effect of regulatory discarding resulting from management measures in other fisheries
has increased related social impacts. For years, both commercial and recreational fishermen have
testified that they are being forced to throw overboard thousands of pounds of spiny dogfish due
to the very low trip limits and annual quota. This problem has continued and may even be
exacerbated by recent increases in stock size for GOM cod and CC/GOM yellowtail flounder.
Alternatives that propose to increase the Gulf of Maine cod trip limit may reduce regulatory
discarding and consequently, the negative social impacts resulting from regulatory discarding in
the most affected Gulf of Maine communities involved in groundfish harvesting. Industry
testimony from the inshore Gulf of Maine fleet suggests that a higher trip limit could convert at
least some discards to landings and may result in even more positive impacts than can be
predicted. By increasing the trip limit to a level that allows inshore boats to “make a day’s pay,”
the industry maintains that the Council could indirectly encourage some vessels to end their trips
without fishing through cod (and continuing to discard it) for other species. This could reduce
regulatory discarding not only on Gulf of Maine cod, but also on other species that may be caught
while fishing on a multispecies trip. While these impacts are difficult to predict, it is without
question that the social impacts of an increased Gulf of Maine cod trip limit would be positive for
the inshore groundfish fleet and their respective communities.
One caveat is that while short-term negative impacts may be reduced and short-term positive
impacts may result from an increase in the Gulf of Maine cod trip limit, long-term negative
impacts could be more severe if a higher trip limit increases fishing mortality on Gulf of Maine
cod and consequently compromises the objectives of this amendment. Fishermen’s behavior
cannot be predicted definitively, and there is some concern that increasing the trip limit could
increase directed fishing on Gulf of Maine cod. There is a fine line that cannot be identified
between allowing vessels to make a day’s pay and encouraging them to increase their directed
trips on Gulf of Maine cod, especially in the inshore areas where the resource may be more easily
accessible for short, directed trips. It must be acknowledged and understood that if an increased
trip limit results in increased fishing mortality on Gulf of Maine cod, additional and perhaps more
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

751

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Social Impacts

severe restrictions may be required in the future. Some sectors of the fleet that claim that they are
not experiencing problems with regulatory discarding at this time are particularly concerned
about this potential outcome. Most alternatives under consideration in this amendment address
these concerns by proposing very modest increases in the trip limit, only seasonal increases in the
trip limit, and/or additional measures to reduce Gulf of Maine cod fishing mortality.
Alternatives that propose higher trip limits on species like Southern New England yellowtail
flounder, Cape Cod yellowtail flounder, and Georges Bank cod affect regulatory discarding
positively for other communities south of the Gulf of Maine. To minimize this, trip limits should
be set at the most reasonable level to affect behavior on the target stock without compromising
the intent by simply converting landings to discards. The Council should consider past history
with Gulf of Maine cod when selecting new trip limits for other groundfish species.
Measurement: The best tools for measuring this factor include surveys, focus groups, and key
informant interviews to gain more perspective on individual perceptions about regulatory
discarding and its effects on stress, morale, job satisfaction, and quality of life. For this
assessment, information about this factor was obtained primarily from the Social Impact
Informational Meeting Report, summarizing a series of ten focus group meetings throughout the
region. Additional information relative to this factor was gained from the Council’s Advisory
Panels, scoping meetings, public hearings, and discussions with other community groups and
panels.
Assessment of this factor should address the following questions:
•
•
•

Is the Proposed Action likely to force fishermen to throw marketable fish overboard?
Is the level of regulatory discarding under the Proposed Action likely to be higher than that
under the no action alternative?
Is the difference between regulatory discarding under the Proposed Action and the no action
alternative likely to be high enough to generate significant negative social impacts?

7.6.3.2

Safety

Description: the ability of fishermen to maintain safe operations at sea; this factor can be
compromised by various adaptations to additional regulations and decreased fishing
opportunities; usually a result of closed areas and DAS modifications
The safety of fishermen and fishing operations at sea is an extremely important social impact
factor, as decreased safety often increases stress at the individual and family level, which can
exacerbate many other family and societal problems. In addition, the impacts of fishing-related
casualties can be felt throughout communities involved in fishing, many of which are close-knit
groups with longstanding family and social networks.
Discussion: National Standard 10 requires that the impact of proposed management measures on
the safety of life at sea be considered during the development of an FMP. There is little empirical
data with which to evaluate the types of management measures that improve or threaten the safety
of fishing vessel operators. The emotional response resulting from any casualty or loss of life
makes it difficult to objectively discuss the types of regulatory decisions that influence behavior
or the ultimate responsibility for decisions made with respect to the operation of vessels.
One study attempted to identify factors that contributed to serious vessel accidents in the
Northeast Region. Di Jin and Thunberg (2005) examined fishing vessel accidents in the
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

752

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Social Impacts

Northeastern United States from 1981 through 2000, updating an earlier report. They modeled
fishing vessel accident probability using logit regression and daily data. Date on accidents were
obtained from the U.S. Coast Guard, while fishing vessel activity was obtained from NMFS
databases. The data are for all fisheries and the results are thus not specific to groundfish vessels
or management. Three different models were constructed representing three different time
periods: 1981-2000, 1981-1993, and 1995-2000. The study focused on ten types of accidents:
allision, capsize, collision, equipment failure, explosion, fire, flooding, grounding, missing, and
sinking. Relevant factors examined for the impact on vessel safety included economic factors
(e.g. revenue), regulatory effects, weather (e/g/ wind speed), season, distance from shore, vessel
size, and broad fishing area (SNE/MA, GB, GOM). The model developed parameters coefficients
for the different factors and tests for the statistical significance of each. In all cases, the model
shows that increasing wind speed and decreasing distance to shore result in an increase in
accident rates. Compared to fishing in the winter, fishing in the spring and fall reduced accident
rates, but not all model results were statistically significant. For the period 1981 -2000 and 19811993, an increase in revenues resulted in a decrease in accident rates. In all three models,
accident rates declined over time. Vessel ton class was a significant factor in some model runs
and for some size classes, with ton class 2 and or 3 vessels having higher accident rates than
larger vessels.
Measures implemented in this amendment may affect the safety of fishermen and fishing
operations, and to the extent possible, the Council should strive to implement measures that
maximize the safety of human life at sea. To the extent that the Council can maximize safety at
sea, negative social impacts resulting from the Amendment 16 management measures and related
to concerns about safety can be minimized. For Amendment 16, changes to area closures have the
potential to affect safety at sea to the extent that they force, directly or indirectly, small vessels to
fish farther from shore.
Proposed DAS modifications also could affect safety. For example, it was speculated that
counting DAS at a 2:1 rate in some areas (adopted in FW 42) may lead fishermen to travel to
areas further from home that have more permissive DAS counting, leading them to conditions
that may be unsuitable for their vessels. It is difficult to find evidence that this occurred (see
section 6.2.3.8). During the Social Impact Informational Meetings, these kinds of adaptations to
DAS reductions were noted to have occurred throughout the region after Amendments 5 and 7. It
is therefore likely that additional negative social impacts related to safety occurred as a result
Amendment 13 and will occur in Amendment 16 if DAS are further reduced.
Measurement: The best tools for measuring this factor include surveys, focus groups, and key
informant interviews to gain more perspective on individual perceptions about safety and its
effects on stress, families, and overall quality of life. For measurement in this assessment,
information was obtained primarily from the Social Impact Informational Meeting Report, the
MARFIN Report, and McCay and Cieri 2000. Additional information relative to this factor was
gained from the Council’s Advisory Panels, scoping meetings, public hearings, and discussions
with other community groups and panels. GIS-based technologies are also useful to assess the
potential impacts on this factor by examining the need for vessels to fish farther from shore as a
result of the proposed management measures.
Assessment of this factor should address the following questions:
•

Is the Proposed Action likely to compromise the safety of fishermen and/or fishing operations
more than the no action alternative?

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

753

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Social Impacts

•
•

Will fishermen need to travel to new fishing grounds or fishing grounds further away from
their homes as a result of the Proposed Action?
Is it likely that fishermen will make adaptations to the proposed management action that
could compromise their safety (taking less crew, fishing in bad weather)?

7.6.3.3

Disruption in Daily Living

Description: changes in the routine living and work activities of affected fishery participants,
including the potential for alteration in their regular social and work patterns to adapt to new
management measures
Consideration of this factor includes vessel flexibility and the ability of fishermen to switch
between fisheries, areas, and gears seasonally and/or in response to market conditions. Yearround and seasonal fishing opportunities are important to consider. These opportunities also relate
to fishermen’s chances to successfully adapt to new regulations. Impacts on this factor are
associated with the ability of affected industry members to develop both short-term and long-term
business plans. Another related impact can be experienced through the loss of crew and/or the
inability to retain reliable crew members on a year-round basis.
Discussion: Changes in established daily patterns – patterns that, in the case of communities
involved in fishing, are often internally-generated and regulated and highly-regimented – can
provide a key component to social impact assessment. Although the existence, nature, and
evolution of these patterns in communities involved in fishing is well-documented by marine
anthropologists, the effects of changes to them have often been overlooked in conducting social
impact assessments for fisheries management. Ideally, measurement of disruption in daily living
should include an assessment of the outcomes of any periods of inactivity, including changes in
social stress and stress-related health problems, job satisfaction, crime rates, and family cohesion.
The most obvious impacts related to this factor occur when fishermen lose the ability to fish for
some period of time; negative impacts increase as the time during which the fishermen cannot
fish increases. Periods of inactivity disrupt daily living patterns and increase stress that can affect
the entire family. In addition, if these periods of inactivity are experienced by many residents
within a community, negative social impacts can be experienced throughout the community.
Shoreside businesses may find it difficult to maintain year-round income without a functional
local fleet, so over the long-term, significant impacts can result from disruptions in daily living
that ultimately change occupational opportunities and community infrastructure. Impacts related
to these factors are discussed in more detail in following sections of this assessment.
The following summarizes some of the discussion relative to disruption in daily living patterns
from the groundfish Social Impact Informational Meetings. Note that these meetings occurred
prior to Amendment 13 and these perceived impacts may not have been realized. For example,
groundfish fishing activity in Boston actually increased in recent years.

•

Because of increased regulations in many fisheries, small vessels have lost much of
their flexibility to move from one fishery to another. In Chatham, meeting
participants felt that regulations have “boxed them in” to particular fisheries, making
it difficult or impossible for them to maximize their opportunities and/or adjust to
changing conditions. When combined with the inherent limitations of small vessels,
the regulations have reduced fishing opportunities to the point that many fishermen
cannot guarantee a year-round income from fishing for themselves or for their crew.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

754

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Social Impacts

•

Uncertainty about the regulations and the future of the groundfish fishery in New
Bedford has made both business and family planning difficult, if not impossible.
Uncertainty has contributed to the lack of new entrants in the fishery as well as family
stresses associated with long-term finances and planning for the future.
Some meeting participants in Portland discussed the loss of flexibility resulting from
the groundfish regulations. They reported that historically, groundfish fishing used to
be a fishery that the Portland fleet would use to “fill in” seasonally and/or with
fluctuations in other fisheries. Ironically, groundfish regulations have limited some of
these other fishing opportunities and made much of the fleet almost entirely
dependent on groundfish.
Increased regulations in many fisheries have limited the flexibility of the Long Island
fishing fleet and made it more difficult to make a year-round income from fishing.
Long Island vessels have depended on the diversity and flexibility of switching target
species (squid, whiting, scup, and others including groundfish) as stocks fluctuate, the
mix of species in an area changes, and/or market conditions change. Seasonal quotas
and other management measures have decreased fishing opportunities and limited the
flexibility of this fleet, particularly smaller vessels.
The core of Boston’s fishing fleet has diminished significantly; in addition, fewer
transient vessels are landing in Boston and taking advantage of the convenient
services the pier has to offer (proximity to transportation, processing facilities, ice,
etc.). Landings are down, and overall activity in the port has decreased. Meeting
participants estimated that the number of vessels landing at the Boston Fish Pier fell
from more than 30 in 1995 to less than 12 in the past year. Most of the remaining
vessels maximize their DAS usage in the winter to capitalize on better prices and then
tie-up for several months at a time. This adaptation has exacerbated financial and
employment problems for shoreside support services.

The implementation of expanded differential DAS counting areas is likely to negatively affect
this factor. Some fishermen may be forced to seek alternative employment opportunities to
support their families. These fishermen often lose their crew members and face additional
problems during the time when they can fish. They also encounter more difficulty maintaining
their fishing operations due to the loss of a reliable income. For vessels that can travel to other
areas to fish, the expanded differential DAS areas still result in disruption in daily living patterns
and negative social impacts, as most of these vessels end up traveling farther from shore to fish,
potentially compromising their safety and increasing stress at the family level because fishermen
are forced to spend more time away from home and fish longer days.
DAS modifications, particularly reductions, can also cause significant disruption in daily living
and fishing patterns. In communities with vessels that rely on the groundfish fishery and use the
majority of their DAS, additional DAS reductions can cause major alterations in fishing practices.
Some larger boats will be forced to maximize their remaining groundfish opportunities by fishing
only during times when market conditions are best, which can be during winter when weather is
less predictable and more extreme. In order to reduce their fishing-related expenses, some vessels
may fish their remaining DAS during one time of the year and tie up their vessels during another
time. This causes disruptions for related shoreside businesses and can ultimately result in further
social and economic dislocation.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

755

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Social Impacts

Measurement: The best tools for measuring this factor include surveys, focus groups, and key
informant interviews to gain more information about daily living patterns and the impacts of
changes to these patterns on stress, families, and overall quality of life. For measurement in this
assessment, information was obtained primarily from the Social Impact Informational Meeting
Report, the MARFIN Report, McCay and Cieri 2000, and the ME DMR Groundfish Regulation
Impact Survey in 2002. Additional information relative to this factor was gained from the
Council’s Advisory Panels, scoping meetings, public hearings, and discussions with other
community groups and panels.
Assessment of this factor should address the following questions:
•
•

•
•

How could the Proposed Action alter the daily living and work patterns of fishing families in
the affected communities?
Will fishermen need to travel to new fishing grounds or fishing grounds farther away from
their homes as a result of the Proposed Action? Will fishermen be spending more time away
from home as a result of the Proposed Action?
Will fishermen experience longer periods of inactivity as a result of the Proposed Action?
Compared to the no action alternative, could the Proposed Action increase stress at the family
level as a result of disruptions in daily living patterns?

7.6.3.4 Changes in Occupational Opportunities and Community
Infrastructure
Description
Changes in Occupational Opportunities: the degree to which the implementation of the
management measures in this amendment could alter the occupational profile of the affected
communities.
Changes in occupational opportunities can lead to changes in household/family income, classes,
and lifestyles. In assessing this variable, both the short-and long-term shifts in job opportunities
should be considered. This includes changes to year-round and seasonal fishing opportunities,
short-term and long-term dislocation from the fishery, employment opportunities, and the ability
to find and keep crew. Flexibility for the fishing fleet and the ability to plan business ventures
over the short-term and long-term also are related factors. Changes in occupational opportunities
are not only important to consider for the commercial fishing fleet, but also the recreational and
party/charter fleet.
External forces (status of economy, community shifts away from fishing and towards tourism,
etc.) can influence the magnitude and direction of changes in occupational opportunities.
Emphasis should be placed on identifying potential changes in the unique social and family
arrangements that characterize the communities under consideration, particularly on changes in
household employment patterns, trends in family-run fishing businesses, and participation in job
retraining programs. Special consideration should also be given to social and cultural values and
norms that may be affected by changes in opportunity, such as long-term family involvement in
the fishery, job satisfaction, and respect for fishing as an occupation and a way of life.
Changes in Community Infrastructure – the increase or decrease in the demand and supply of
basic infrastructure services and facilities essential to fishing in the affected communities,

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

756

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Social Impacts

including processors, seafood markets, boat and equipment repair shops, bait and ice providers,
display auctions, cooperatives, creditors, legal services, etc.
The cost, quality, availability, and location of fishing-related services can affect community
members’ business practices, satisfaction with their community, and overall well-being.
Additionally, these service industries provide alternative fishing-related employment
opportunities in communities and can contribute significant revenues to the city and county in
which the community involved in fishing is located. Impacts on this social impact factor are
directly connected to disruptions in daily living patterns and other factors. They are also more
long-term in nature.
Discussion
Changes in Occupational Opportunities: Over time, many groundfish regulations have affected
occupational opportunities for communities involved in fishing throughout the region. The
following summarizes some of the discussion relative to changes in occupational opportunities
from the groundfish Social Impact Informational Meetings:
•

•

In Gloucester, community residents feel that the rolling closures have severely reduced
the flexibility of the fleet and have precluded fishermen from making a year-round
income from fishing. Fishermen have difficulty taking advantage of seasonal fluctuations
in stocks, markets, and/or fisheries and fishing accordingly. In addition, they report that
the western Gulf of Maine closure has precluded many vessels from seeking viable
alternative fisheries (pollock, some flatfish) and thus further limits their flexibility and
ability to adapt to regulations.
In Portsmouth, some people reported that they have had a very difficult time keeping up
with the changing regulations, and it has become impossible to plan ahead and develop
financial and other mechanisms to adapt to new or different regulations. In addition,
meeting participants cited problems keeping year-round crew, loss of employment
stability, and resultant increased stress at the individual and family level as direct
consequences of the inshore Gulf of Maine rolling closures.
In Portland, residents reported that with increasing regulations and uncertainty about the
future, fishermen are more reluctant to invest in alternative fisheries. As a result, the fleet
has adapted by relying less on the flexibility to switch between fisheries as they did
historically, and more on maximizing their limited opportunities in the groundfish
fishery. Vessel owners also are finding it increasingly difficult to employ reliable and
experienced crew members on a year-round basis. Eighty eight groundfish days-at-sea
alone does not offer enough opportunity to maintain an adequate crew on a large dragger,
and some of these boats have few alternatives (some fish for shrimp and/or herring
seasonally).

DAS reductions were cited as having precluded year-round fishing opportunities
in Boston; now, most vessels from Boston fish most or all of their DAS during the
winter and tie-up their vessels for 3-5 months.
Several meeting participants from the South Shore agreed that the six-month
rolling closures (Blocks 124 and 125 in particular) represent a 100% groundfish
closure for them. Currently, October, November, and January – April are closed
to gear capable of catching multispecies; in December, 400 pounds of cod cannot
cover trip expenses. The other five months (May – September) are historically
when most of the South Shore fleet would shift their effort from groundfish to
dogfish. Dogfish is no longer a viable fishery for federal permit holders, so many

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

757

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Social Impacts

of these vessels are experiencing great difficulty maintaining occupational
opportunities on a year-round basis.
Some measures under consideration may reduce opportunities for recreational and party/charter
vessels that currently may be able to access offshore areas. Long-term occupational opportunities
in some communities could be impacted by this action to the extent that these measures would
reduce employment in the recreational sector and overall community revenues generated from
recreational fishing.
Some measures implemented in this amendment could intensify negative social problems
associated with changes in occupational opportunities over the long-term. Examples include
modifications that reduce DAS and/or make DAS less efficient or productive. Depending on the
economic costs, gear restrictions and new mesh regulations could also contribute to reductions in
occupational opportunities to the extent that marginal vessels are not able to absorb the costs of
the new gear. DAS reductions (including the expansion of the differential DAS counting areas),
however, are likely to be most responsible for the changes in occupational opportunities that may
occur in communities involved in fishing over time as a direct result of fisheries management
actions. Changes in occupational opportunities are important to consider in relation to the
alternatives under consideration to address capacity.
Changes in Community Infrastructure: Increasing restrictions in groundfish and almost all
fisheries are reducing opportunities throughout the industry and resulting in a significant
downsizing of commercial fleets in most communities. For example, industry members in Boston
estimated that the number of vessels landing at the Boston Fish Pier fell from more than 30 in
1995 to less than 12 in the year 2000. There has been a recent rebound in the number of vessels
landing in Boston as vessels have relocated from other ports. Downeast Maine and other
community groups in Maine also have experienced significant fleet downsizing as Maine’s
groundfish fleet has concentrated around Portland prior to FW 42, and shows evidence of leaving
even Portland since the adopt of FW 42.
While groundfish regulations have contributed to difficulty finding and keeping experienced
crew, the industry reports that it also is quickly losing its shoreside labor pool due to more
attractive alternative employment opportunities. The fleet and industry have downsized, and so
have remaining shoreside support services. The industry reported the loss of cutting houses,
processing plants, and ice houses throughout coastal communities. This has eliminated job
opportunities and caused qualified laborers who rely on year-round employment to seek jobs
elsewhere. Many people worry that this trend is irreversible given uncertainty in the fishing
industry and the benefits and stability that many other shoreside labor industries are able to offer
their employees.
Competition for commercial and residential waterfront property has increased and resulted in
higher real estate prices and taxes, as residents of most communities involved in fishing are
witnessing a long-term shift towards recreational and tourist-oriented uses of the waterfront.
Downeast Maine residents described transitions in their own communities, still very dependent on
fisheries, as local tackle and supply businesses are replaced with art galleries and bookstores. The
industry is finding it more difficult to afford to live in their communities and maintain the
shoreside infrastructure necessary to support their fisheries. Many people worry about whether
their community will be able to support increased activity as stocks continue to recover and yields
continue to increase.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

758

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Social Impacts

Related to these problems is the loss of new and young entrants to the fishery. Uncertainty,
instability, and loss of opportunity are discouraging the younger generation from pursuing fishing
as a way of life. According to meeting participants, parents are no longer encouraging their
children to carry on the family tradition of fishing; instead, they are encouraging them to seek
higher education and enter a more promising and stable career. Unfortunately, this sometimes
requires the children to leave the community because employment opportunities outside of
fishing and similar industries are scarce.
The groundfish measures most likely to impact this factor over the long-term may be those that
generate the most significant economic impacts, as economic impacts can affect business
opportunities and the ability for the industry to diversify over the short-term. Some examples of
the measures to consider in this framework adjustment include DAS reductions, mesh changes (if
they are costly and affect a large number of groundfish-dependent vessels), and area closures.
Measurement
Measurement of this factor is the most complex and involves many sources of information. This
factor relates most directly to economic aspects of the fishery; therefore, the analysis of economic
impacts provided in this amendment helps most to predict changes to occupational opportunities
and community infrastructure as well as resulting social impacts. Predictions about the impacts of
the alternatives on gross revenues and the results of the IMPLAN I-O model are primary sources
of information to measure this factor and provide a basis to quantify the social impacts related to
this factor.
Social and demographic data including Census data and information from regional retraining
centers is helpful to assess this factor. In addition, measurement tools like surveys, focus groups,
and key informant interviews often provide information related to occupational opportunities for
the fishing industry and specific aspects of community infrastructure. For this information, the
Social Impact Informational Meeting Report, MARFIN Report, McCay and Cieri 2000, and the
ME DMR Groundfish Regulation Impact Survey were referenced. Additional information relative
to this factor was gained from the Council’s Advisory Panels, scoping meetings, public hearings,
and discussions with other community groups and panels.

Assessment of this factor should address the following questions:
•
•
•
•

Could the Proposed Action change the structure and/or composition of New England’s
fishing fleets?
Is the Proposed Action likely to result in a significant loss of employment opportunities
within the affected communities?
Will affected fishermen have alternative fishing opportunities under the Proposed Action?
Compared to the no action alternative, will the Proposed Action significantly affect the ability
of shoreside infrastructure to maintain year-round business opportunities?

7.6.3.5

Formation of Attitudes

Description: positive or negative feelings, beliefs, or positions expressed by impacted members
of communities involved in fishing regarding the Proposed Action
This factor provides information about the community climate that prevails and can help to assess
the potential for success with Amendment 16 and the need for mitigation in some circumstances.
Consideration of this factor can provide for a better understanding of how changes induced by the
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

759

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Social Impacts

Proposed Action could influence the affected communities. In addition, management measures
that are more preferred or supported by the fishing industry generally encounter more success
over the long-term than measures that are opposed or that the industry feels are forced upon them.
Some support the notion that compliance with regulations is directly related to the degree of
support for the regulations or faith that they will be effective in achieving their objectives.
Discussion: It is difficult to predict which measures in Amendment 16 will affect this variable
the most. On one hand, the formation of attitudes towards regulatory discarding in the recent past
has been so negative that any measure reducing regulatory discarding should generate positive
impacts. On the other hand, proposals to further reduce DAS or change the way that DAS are
counted have already been met with strong opposition by fishermen throughout the region. While
some measures may improve attitudes towards groundfish management measures (those that
decrease regulatory discarding and improve safety at sea), others may worsen negative feelings
(those that decrease occupational opportunities and flexibility).
In general, current industry perceptions about the effectiveness and direction of groundfish
management are negative. Constantly changing groundfish regulations and layers of confusing
management measures and their disproportional impacts have resulted in a loss of credibility for
the Council and NMFS and a loss of faith in the federal fisheries management process. Some
industry members are bitter because they feel that regulations are never given time to work before
additional ones are implemented. In addition, analyses for numerous actions that the Council has
taken since Amendment 5 projected that objectives would be met and that the industry would
begin to reap the benefits of its sacrifices. Much of the industry feels that they are still waiting for
the opportunity to reap these benefits, yet additional management measures continue to be
proposed.
Another development that has affected the industry’s faith in the management process is the new
assessment models proposed for many stocks. The GARM III adopted new modeling assumptions
for assessing the resource and as a result the perception of stock status for several stocks changed
dramatically. These negative perceptions are coupled with increases in fish abundance and catch
rates that the industry reports to be experiencing in many areas and recent discoveries about
errors associated with the NEFSC trawl survey.
Measurement: The best tools for measuring this factor include surveys, focus groups, and key
informant interviews to gain more information about perceptions about the current management
process, management regulations, and the entities involved in the management process. For
measurement in this assessment, information was obtained primarily from the Social Impact
Informational Meeting Report, the MARFIN Report, McCay and Cieri 2000, and the ME DMR
Groundfish Regulation Impact Survey in 2002. Additional information relative to this factor was
gained from the Council’s Advisory Panels, scoping meetings, public hearings, Committee and
Council meetings, and discussions with other community groups and panels.

Assessment of this factor should address the following questions:
•
•

In comparison to the no action alternative, is the Proposed Action likely to result in the
formation of negative attitudes by affected parties?
If negative attitudes are predicted to result, are they likely to compromise the effectiveness of
the Proposed Action?

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

760

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Social Impacts

7.6.4 General Impacts of Effort Control Measures under Consideration
This section provides a discussion of the social impacts that are most likely to result from DAS
modifications, area closures, trip limits, gear restrictions, hard total allowable catches (TACs),
and special access programs, six of the management tools that form the basis for most of the
alternatives under consideration in this amendment. The unique aspects of each of the alternatives
are discussed in subsequent sections of this assessment.

7.6.4.1

DAS Modifications

In comparison to the status quo alternative, Alternatives 2A, 3A, and 4 specifically propose
modifications to DAS. Changes in the way that DAS are counted can sometimes equate to DAS
reductions. If DAS are counted at a 2.25:1 rate year-round in the inshore Gulf of Maine area, for
example, vessels that are able to fish only in that area effectively receive a further reduction in the
DAS available for them to use. For vessels that may be able to access other areas to fish at a 1:1
DAS counting rate, it is likely that they will move to those areas where the regulation may not
impact them. This could be farther from shore, possibly compromising their safety.
Social impacts of DAS reductions tend to be more far-reaching and long-term in nature than
social impacts from other management measures like trip limits, gear restrictions, and seasonal
area closures. They tend to have the most significant impacts on disruption in daily living and
changes in occupational opportunities and community infrastructure, although they also can
affect safety. They result from direct reductions in groundfish fishing opportunities and revenues
for vessels that are most active in the fishery. Reductions in groundfish fishing opportunities
through the loss of DAS also compromise vessels’ flexibility and can have direct impacts on
fishing activity within a port, consequently impacting the shoreside facilities that are dependent
on the affected vessels. Other impacts of DAS reductions include increased uncertainty and
instability in the fishery and/or community; problems finding and keeping crew members on a
year-round basis; social impacts related to family and business financial problems; overall
increased stress at the individual, family, and community level; and reductions in perceptions
about job satisfaction.
Indirect negative social impacts resulting from DAS reductions relate to adaptations that vessels
make to compensate for reduced opportunity and reduce income, which can oftentimes increase
their risk-taking and compromise their safety at sea. As income is reduced, some fishermen will
try to minimize their operating costs in order to stay viable, sometimes reducing or eliminating
crew, especially on smaller vessels. More owners of smaller vessels could be forced to fish alone
for some or all of the year. Vessels may also try to maximize their remaining DAS by fishing
during the winter when prices are usually better. Winter weather is more extreme and less
predictable, increasing dangers that fishermen may encounter.
In addition, the disproportionate impacts of DAS reductions or differential DAS counting areas
can create perceptions of inequity, which often exacerbate social impacts occurring in
communities involved in groundfish fishing harvesting. Some people think that DAS allocations
from Amendments 5 and 7 were unfair and created inequities and tensions between sectors
involved in the fishery. Those who switched from groundfish to other fisheries with the decline of
the groundfish stocks feel that they were punished by not receiving their true historical allocation
of DAS. Many fishermen feel that they have sacrificed more than their share to rebuild the
resource and are concerned about their future ability to realize the benefits of their sacrifices.
Reductions in allocated DAS proposed in the capacity alternatives have the potential to
exacerbate problems associated with the disproportionate impacts of DAS reductions. Vessels
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

761

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Social Impacts

that stand to lose the most allocated DAS in this amendment are those that currently have the
highest levels of latent DAS. Some proportion of latent DAS in the fishery can be attributable to
vessels that are still active, but have shifted their effort from groundfish to other fisheries for
many reasons, including groundfish stock declines, market conditions, and opportunities and
encouragement to pursue alternative fisheries. As a result, some vessels may feel unfairly treated
and disproportionately impacted by the capacity alternatives.
One concern about the long-term impacts of DAS reductions is that once allocated or used DAS
are reduced, the DAS that are eliminated from the fishery will never be returned to the vessels.
Whether or not this is the case cannot be predicted at this time, but it should be noted as a serious
concern relative to long-term social and community impacts of DAS reductions. Certainly recent
management actions have steadily reduced DAS (or increased differential DAS counting rates);
the sole exception appears to be the steaming time credit given to vessels to encourage fishing in
the Eastern U.S./Canada area. As noted in the report from the social impact informational
meetings, losses of shoreside support infrastructure like cutting houses, ice facilities, processing
facilities, and other important services have been experienced in communities throughout the
region. While these losses may be due in part to external factors, additional losses will be
experienced in some communities that depend on the groundfish fishery if DAS are further
reduced by large amounts in this amendment. The long-term concerns relate to the ability of the
community to remain actively involved in the groundfish fishery and the ability of the community
to support increased participation in the fishery as the stocks continue to recover and support
larger yields. This is a significant concern for communities that are marginally involved in the
fishery at this time (northern Maine and southern New England communities).
Another important concern is the potential for increased conflicts between user groups resulting
from DAS reductions. If DAS are reduced significantly in this amendment or if this amendment
changes the way that DAS are counted, it is possible that vessels that historically fished offshore
will fish closer to shore to minimize steam time and maximize their DAS usage. This could mean
that larger vessels from Gulf of Maine ports that may traditionally fish on Georges Bank will
instead fish in the Gulf of Maine to save the DAS that they lose from their steam time to Georges
Bank. Conflicts between user groups were identified during the social impact informational
meetings (i.e. large boats/small boats) and could intensify as a result of adaptations that vessels
make to DAS modifications. Conflicts between user groups can exacerbate intra- and intercommunity conflicts, create additional perceptions of inequity, and weaken overall cohesion
within communities involved in groundfish harvesting.
The economic impacts of DAS reductions that are being considered in this amendment are
discussed in the economic impacts section. Certainly the most significantly impacted vessels from
an economic perspective will be those that currently use most or all of their DAS. Similarly, the
most significantly impacted communities will be those that currently depend on vessels that use
most or all of their DAS.
Portland, Boston, New Bedford, Chatham/Harwichport, Provincetown, Gloucester, the NH
Seacoast, and Portsmouth, exhibit a relatively high dependence on the multispecies fishery, use
more of their allocated DAS, and will be most impacted by large-scale reductions in DAS.
Communities like Eastern Long Island, Point Judith, Eastern RI, and Northern Coastal NJ are
currently less dependent on the groundfish fishery and are likely to be impacted by the DAS
allocations through the loss of flexibility and the opportunity to pursue the groundfish fishery as
an alternative to other fisheries.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

762

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Social Impacts

7.6.4.2

Trip Limits

Trip Limits are most likely to affect regulatory discarding and formation of attitudes. In general,
trip limits can affect the structure of a fishery. If the trip limit is set very low, the inshore sector of
the fleet can sometimes manage to fish economically, while the offshore sector of the fleet cannot
cover trip expenses to direct fishing effort on the species managed by the trip limit. This can
change the structure of revenues generated in the fishery and can ultimately change the long-term
structure of the fishery itself. These types of outcomes, however, have not been evident to a large
extent in the GOM cod fishery because trip limits have been set too low for most vessels to target
GOM cod. This action considers increasing many trip limits (at the cost of reduced DAS), so
these alternatives may have positive social impacts. An exception is for SNE/MA winter flounder
and several other stocks where possession is prohibited. This is likely to be a particular problem
for SNE/MA winter flounder as the stock rebuilds. The stock area extends east of Cape Cod and
throughout the SNE/MA area. There is considerable fishing activity in these areas, both as part of
the multispecies FMP and other FMPs, and discards will increase as the stock rebuilds. While the
plan proposes some gear requirements to reduce these discards they will no doubt become
problematic if rebuilding is successful. AS fishermen more frequently encounter the stock they
will become frustrated with a management measure that does not allow retention. Nevertheless,
from the fishermen’s point of view, this may be preferable to a complete closure of the area to all
fishing activity that catches the species.
Social impacts have resulted because the trip limits themselves hold a socially-undesirable
characteristic – regulatory discarding. The impacts of regulatory discarding are discussed infra.
In the past, different trip limits for cod on Georges Bank and in the Gulf of Maine also have
created perceptions of inequity between some sectors of the fishery. Although they are separate
stocks of cod and there are many reasons for different trip limits, codfish are marketed similarly
no matter where they are caught (sometimes prices may vary depending on how they are caught).
Fishermen in the Gulf of Maine may be disadvantaged in terms of the fresh fish market for cod.
Moreover, larger vessels from Gulf of Maine ports may be able to fish on Georges Bank and land
more cod, increasing perceptions of inequity in some communities. This often exacerbates
conflicts between sectors of the industry, which create social impacts in the form of intracommunity conflicts and loss of community cohesion.

7.6.4.3

Gear Restrictions

In comparison to the no action alternative, several gear restrictions are being proposed in the
alternatives under consideration. In terms of the SIA factors, gear restrictions affect changes in
occupational opportunities and community infrastructure and formation of attitudes the most,
although they can also affect regulatory discarding and disruption in daily living to a lesser
extent. Gear restrictions can compromise business planning for shoreside support services and
impose an economic burden on a large number of vessels. The social impacts likely to result from
changes to gear restrictions are related to the cost for vessels to comply with and the ability of
gear suppliers to adapt to the new gear restrictions.
If a new mesh size is required by the Proposed Action and not readily available, gear suppliers
must order the twine well in advance of the effective date of the new regulation. Gear suppliers
have indicated that ordering enough new mesh for the groundfish fleet could take between 3-6
months. In addition, new mesh requirements can sometimes leave gear suppliers with a
significant amount of the “old mesh” that may no longer be marketable if it cannot be used in the
fishery anymore (or in other fisheries). This results in a more significant loss of income for the
gear suppliers.
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

763

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Social Impacts

Gear changes can affect short-term and long-term business planning for gear suppliers and related
support services. The uncertainty associated with the implementation of new groundfish
regulations necessitates gear suppliers to wait until it is definite that a new gear will be required.
It is too risky and too expensive to order new twine or other gear prior to an official
announcement of a new regulation. Quite often, this leaves gear suppliers uncertain about the
short-term future needs for their business and makes it impossible for them to plan accordingly
when developing longer-term business strategies. It is rare that a supplier can plan his/her
business needs annually if gear restrictions change on as frequent a basis.
Gear restrictions place an additional economic burden on all affected fishing vessels. The ability
to adapt to the new gear regulations will depend on vessels’ current economic situation and
ability to cover the short-term costs of the gear. If the new gear requirement is significantly
different from current gear requirements, it is likely that the most marginal vessels will not be
able to cover the costs of the new gear and will be forced to seek alternative fisheries or stop
fishing altogether. For the vessels that can cover the short-term costs of the gear, long-term
impacts are related more to the loss of revenues from fishing that may occur because of the new
gear. For example, vessels are likely to lose some of their catch of species other than groundfish
if they are required to fish for groundfish with a larger mesh. Over the long-term, this may result
in more significant economic impacts and, ultimately, more severe dislocation of vessels in the
fishery.
The magnitude and nature of the impacts of the gear restrictions under consideration in
Amendment 16 will depend on the cost of the new gear, the current availability of the new gear,
and vessels’ choices as to whether or not to fish in the areas where the new gear is required. Some
additional discussion of specific gear restrictions proposed in this amendment is provided within
the discussion of the various alternatives.

7.6.4.4

Special Access Programs

Special access programs are being considered in combination with the alternatives proposed in
this amendment. In concept, Amendment 16 endorses the concept of a Special Access Program
(SAP) to allow for the establishment of groundfish fisheries that target stocks that can support
increased fishing mortality, while avoiding stocks that require reductions in mortality. The
positive impacts of these access programs would be from increased groundfish fishing
opportunities for vessels that are able to participate in them. Participation could generate
additional revenues and help to provide year-round fishing income. Over the long-term SAPs
could mitigate some of the negative social impacts resulting from the broader management
measures that affect mortality on all stocks like DAS modifications. SAPs are most likely to
positively affect changes in occupational opportunities and community infrastructure, disruption
in daily living, and formation of attitudes.
There are three SAPs that are modified in Amendment 16. All have the purpose of allowing effort
to target Georges Bank haddock. The CAII Yellowtail flounder SAP is not likely to be used by
small vessels, since they do not have the range to participate safely there. The SAP for hook gear
vessels in CAI may provide limited opportunities for small vessels, primarily from Cape Cod and
other Massachusetts ports.
The identification of programs to use Category B DAS is intended to help mitigate the social and
economic impacts of the measures needed to rebuild overfished stocks. The use of Category B
DAS distinguishes between B reserve DAS - only used in special access programs (SAP) (e.g.,
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

764

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Social Impacts

closed areas) - and regular B DAS used to target healthy stocks. Two of the proposed SAPs are
located offshore and target resources in CAII. Smaller vessels are less likely to have the capacity
to steam such a distance and may not find the use of DAS coupled with operating costs and safety
risks worth the effort. Conversely, the CAI SAP for hook gear is closer to shore and may provide
an opportunity for smaller, selective hook gear to use Category B (reserve) DAS. Massachusetts
vessels have easier access to this SAP.
Future programs to use Category B (regular) DAS will be limited to targeting healthy stocks.
Present stock conditions suggest that there may be more opportunities for these programs on
Georges Bank, given the status of GB haddock in particular. There are no opportunities for these
programs in the southern New England area given the status of SNE/MA yellowtail flounder and
SNE/MA winter flounder. Within the Gulf of Maine, there may be limited opportunities for
programs to target GOM haddock and redfish.

7.6.4.5

Category B (regular) DAS Program

The Category B (regular) DAS Program provides limited opportunities for fishermen to use
Category B DAS outside of SAPs. As such, it helps mitigate the impacts of changes to other
effort controls, such as the reduction in Category A DAS that can be used and differential DAS
counting. While these elements would be expected to result in positive attitudes for the
management program, their effect is limited by the other constraints on this program. The likely
stock that will be targeted is GB haddock, so vessels that are not able to access this resource will
not benefit. This includes many of the vessels that are most effected by the effort controls that are
adopted - the inshore GOM dayboat fleet that fishes from the port groups located from Southern
Maine to Provincetown, MA. These fishermen will see little benefit from this program and may
resent the opportunities it provides to vessels that they perceive as less affected by the other
Amendment 16 measures. The requirement to use a haddock separator or Ruhle trawl, the
inability to target monkfish in this program due to low monkfish trip limits, and the reduction in
DAS available for this program are all elements that may frustrate many who support the
programs concept but not the details of its implementation. There are likely some positive social
impacts from this measure for those vessels and communities that can take advantage of the
program, but these benefits are likely to accrue to the larger vessels that fish on Georges Bank
and not the vessels that are most affected by the restrictions in the inshore GOM differential DAS
area. These larger vessels typically sail from the ports of Portland, Gloucester, Boston, and New
Bedford. Of these four ports, Gloucester alone has a large dayboat fleet that will be affected by
the Proposed Action but will receive little benefit from the Category B (regular) DAS Program.

7.6.5 Social Impacts of the Proposed t Action
A significant amount of discussion about social impacts already has been presented in this
assessment. Discussion of the alternatives in the subsections below is brief and refers to previous
sections of this assessment where appropriate.

7.6.5.1 Updates to Status Determination Criteria and Formal Rebuilding
Programs
Adoption of the updated status determination criteria and ACB control rules for groundfish stocks
is a routine process and is not likely to have any direct social impacts. Many biomass targets have
declined from the values adopted by Amendment 13. While on the surface this might be viewed
by fishermen as a positive development, it also means that MSY values have declined and the
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

765

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Social Impacts

value of the rebuilt fishery is not as high as predicted earlier. The GARM process was
contentious, and members of the fishing industry dispute the results of the most recent
assessments, which may have helped to foster distrust between fishermen and scientists. The
revised mortality targets, while increasing on a few stocks, have decreased overall from previous
levels and will thus require a decrease in fishing effort. Social impacts of specific effort control
reduction alternatives are discussed infra.

7.6.5.2

Impacts of Fishery Program Administration

There are several measures proposed within the administration of the fishery management
program that may generate some social impacts. These measures and their likely impacts are
discussed below.

7.6.5.2.1 Annual Catch Limits
Implementation of ACLs as required by the Magnuson-Stevens Act may have social impacts that
are difficult to define. Since it cannot be determined whether the use of ACLs will change effort
levels or allocation of the resource, the most likely type of impact is a change in the formation of
attitudes toward the management process. The standardization of a process to determine fishing
levels may lend a sense of legitimacy to fisheries management in the eyes of the public. However,
the process for setting ACLs is quite complicated and technical, and some would-be public
participants could be deterred from engaging in management forums.
The adoption of the ABC control rules may lead to concerns that the fishery is being managed in
an overly conservative manner. This is not likely to occur until after stocks are rebuilt. Fishermen
may view fishing at 75% of FMSY on a rebuilt stock as limiting their ability to benefit from
rebuilding. This could affect attitudes towards the management program since it will be viewed as
limiting occupational opportunities unnecessarily.

7.6.5.2.2 Addition of Atlantic Wolffish to the Management Unit
The addition of Atlantic Wolffish to the management unit contained in the groundfish FMP is a
purely administrative measure unlikely to have any measurable social impacts.
The wolffish EFH designation alternatives being considered in Amendment 16 would have no
social impacts on fishing or non-fishing activities in the Northeast region. Changes in fishing
activity that reduce accessibility to fishing grounds by vessels using certain ports which could
have differential geographic impacts on local communities would only be affected by
management regulations which minimize the adverse EFH impacts of fishing (e.g., closed areas,
area-based reductions in effort). These regulations are already in place. Changes in these
regulations are being considered in Phase II of the NEFMC EFH Omnibus Amendment 2. They
would be based on the vulnerability of habitats utilized by the entire suite of 27 species managed
by the NEFMC which have EFH areas that, taken as a group, overlap with all of the candidate
wolfish EFH designation alternatives. The addition of wolffish EFH would not affect the EFH
protection provisions of the MSA: they would still apply to fishing and non-fishing activities that
are conducted throughout the geographic extent of the existing EFH designations

7.6.5.2.3 Sector Administration Provisions
Sector administration provisions are likely to have social impacts on individual fishermen and
fishing communities. Sector formation proposals are cumbersome to draft and could increase
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

766

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Social Impacts

operating costs. They also need to be drafted in consultation with the NMFS, which could lead to
disruptions in daily living and frustration with fisheries managers. The formation of sectors will
also necessarily change relationships between members of fishing communities. Participants will
have to work closely together to create proposals that will satisfy the interests of each person
involved. While this process could be contentious and cause rifts among community members, it
may also be an opportunity for relationship-building and lead to increased social capital and
infrastructure within communities and regions.
The allocation of resources to sectors is likely to have significant impacts on some members of
the industry. Depending on which allocation method is chosen, individual fishermen will be
allocated comparatively more or less landings history to bring into the sector. The amount of
landings history will determine future allocations and economic benefits, which will have
pervasive effects for individuals and communities. Many fishermen will perceive allocations as
inequitable if they do not receive the portion they feel they have earned.
Impacts associated with the actual implementation of sectors and the results of specific
administrative measures will be discussed infra in the section on sector implementation.

7.6.5.2.4 Reporting Requirements
The adoption of additional reporting requirements may slightly add to the amount of time fishery
participants spend on administrative matters, but is not expected to have significant social
impacts. While the requirement to declare whether a vessel will fish in multiple reporting areas on
a trip may lead to negative attitudes for some fishermen, more accurate catch reporting could
improve assessments in the future and may lead to acceptance of the requirement.

7.6.5.2.5 Allocation of Groundfish to the Commercial and Recreational
Groundfish Fisheries
Allocation between the commercial and recreational groundfish fisheries could impact the
capacity of each group to catch some stocks in the future, but the social impacts of this measure
are difficult to determine. The proposed allocations seek to maintain the catch ratios currently in
place, so their adoption should not unduly burden either fishery. There is disagreement about the
years used to determine the allocation, however. Some commercial fishermen believe the selected
years unfairly benefit recreation fishermen. Such beliefs will lead to the formation of negative
attitudes towards the management program among commercial fishermen affected by the
allocation.

7.6.5.2.6 Changes to the DAS Leasing and Transfer Programs
The extension of the DAS leasing program by FW 42 was designed to help mitigate the effort
restrictions providing a mechanism for vessel operators to increase the DAS that are available to
their vessels. In addition, it provides a means for vessels that may have too few DAS to be
profitable to earn a return DAS by leasing them to other vessels, which provides the vessel owner
with some revenue while avoiding operating costs. In general, the leasing program has been
viewed as a positive development. However, leasing has not been without its detractors. Some
fishermen believe that leasing helped contribute to increased mortality on GOM cod and other
groundfish stocks, and may do the same in the future. They are concerned that the leasing
program makes it more difficult to meet mortality objectives and in the long run will result in
additional effort restrictions. From this point of view, the leasing program will ultimately prove
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

767

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Social Impacts

costly to the fishery. While those vessel operators that have sufficient financial resources to
acquire DAS through leasing may be able to absorb future effort reductions, other vessel
operators may be forced out of business.
This action proposes several changes to the DAS leasing program. One that may have positive
social impacts will allow DAS to be leased from permits that are in the CPH category. This will
allow fishermen to lease DAS from permits that are not attached to vessels. At present, the only
purpose served by the prohibition to lease DAS from permits in CPH is to create an
administrative burden as fishermen take the permits out of CPH and put them on skiffs so they
can use the DAS. Simplifying access to the DAS on those permits will have positive benefits.
The proposed changes also remove the cap on the number of DAS that can be leased. This may
help some permit holders acquire sufficient DAS to break-even, and can be expected to improve
attitudes and increase occupational opportunities as a result.
The proposed changes to the DAS transfer program will improve the attitudes of fishermen
towards the regulations. The current program is unattractive and has rarely been used by any
vessel. By making this program easier to use fishermen will benefit from the availability of an
additional way to mitigate the effort reductions adopted by Amendment 16.

7.6.5.2.7 Special Management Programs
The expansion of the U.S. /CA haddock SAP, the opening of the CAII yellowtail SAP for
targeting haddock, and the expansion of the hook gear haddock SAP will have positive impacts.
All will create opportunity for increased catch and revenue, leading to increased occupational
opportunities. Also, regulatory discarding may be reduced by fishing in those areas. Increasing
fishing opportunities in those areas may help to offset losses brought on by a reduction in DAS
throughout the fishery.
Negative social impacts associated with changes in the special management programs include a
loss of opportunity for targeting pollock with the change in Category B DAS regulations and
possible safety concerns. Industry members that have been heavily dependent on pollock catch
will suffer as a result of decreased catches and less opportunity for fishing on the stock. Also, the
existence of the SAPs may cause effort to shift to their location that would otherwise be directed
closer to land. Boats could be led further afield than they are equipped to handle. As discussed
above, there could be safety concerns associated with an effort shift offshore.

7.6.5.3

Impacts of Management Alternatives to Meet Mortality Objectives

7.6.5.3.1 Commercial Fishery Management Measures
The measures already addressed include DAS reduction, trip limits, restricted gear areas, and
differential DAS counting. The 24 hour clock is one additional component of Option 3A with the
potential to create social impacts.
The 24 hour clock is a system in which DAS are counted in increments such that any portion of a
day fished counts as an entire twenty-four hours. This effort control method affects the way that
people plan the duration and scope of their fishing trips. It has been disfavored in the past due to
the belief that vessels may stay out at sea longer than is advisable in order to fully utilize all the
hours that will be counted. If vessels do not come to port based on the need to maximize their
catch, safety issues can arise due to inclement weather or understaffed vessels. Recent
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

768

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Social Impacts

developments in the fishery have led some fishermen to fish with smaller crews than in the past,
or in the case of some smaller vessels to fish without any crew other than the vessel captain. It is
argued that with a 24-hour clock the vessel operators will remain at sea longer than is advisable in
order to catch fish during as much of the 24 –hour period as is possible, leading to increased
fatigue and a risk of vessel accidents. There is little empirical evidence to support or refute this
concern. Comments by Coast Guard representatives during consideration of FW 42 noted that
crew fatigue is a concern for vessel operation and as a result Coast Guard boat crews are subject
to operating hour limits to reduce the possibility of accidents. Another concern raised is the
suggestion that fishermen will keep fishing the full 24 hours and discard species limited by a trip
limit. There is also the concern that if surprised by adverse weather the tendency will be to keep
fishing rather than return to port in order to maximize use of the fishing time charged.
Although these concerns were underscored during public comment for Framework 42 and
appeared to sway the opinions of some Council members when choosing the Proposed Action,
many fishermen claim that the 24 hour clock is no more responsible for safety issues than are
differential DAS alternatives that shift effort into other areas. These alternative views point out
that catches of many species are limited by trip limits and it makes little sense to continue fishing
and incur operating costs if the additional catch cannot be landed, particularly in the case of highvalue species like cod. They note that for those species that are not subject to a trip limit, vessel
operators will realize that they cannot handle the volume of fish that can be caught when fishing a
full day without additional crew, mitigating to some extent the concerns over fatigue. As support
for this argument they point to day gillnet fishermen who have been subject to a mandatory DAS
charge of fifteen hours, yet many continue to fish less than the maximum charge to save on
operating costs. Choosing to keep fishing in the face of adverse weather is just one possible
response – fishermen may also choose to be more cautious when considering weather before
departing on a trip in order to reduce the risk of having to end a trip early.
The GOM haddock sink gillnet pilot program, if successful, will allow a greater catch of haddock
to be retained and thus increase efficiency and revenue in the fishery. Other positive impacts will
be improved attitudes as more fish are able to be caught, and the continuing fostering of
innovation in the industry
The proposed decrease in the haddock minimum size should have positive social impacts. It will
reduce discards and improve attitudes toward management by allowing more of the catch to be
retained. It should also lead to greater revenue and the ability to land more of the allocated ACL
for the stock.

7.6.5.3.2 Recreational Fishery Management Measures
The social impacts of the proposed recreational measures are difficult to discern, in part because
many participants are not associated with a primary or secondary port group: passengers on
party/charter vessels come from a wide area and are often not specifically associated with a
fishing community. For the party/charter operators that participated in the development of the
management program, there was resentment that any measures were contemplated. According to
these personnel, they view the need to reduce mortality as a problem for the commercial fleet and
not the responsibility of the recreational industry (including party/charter vessels). Nevertheless,
the proposed measures were developed by the Recreational Advisory Panel and have the support
of that panel given that the Council had decided to reduce recreational mortality by an amount
similar to commercial mortality. When compared to the No Action alternative attitudes are likely

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

769

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Social Impacts

to be negative, but the Proposed Action is an improvement over other alternatives that were
considered.
The area of recreational fisheries management with the largest potential for social impacts is the
determination of accountability measures. Those are discussed in the appropriate section below.
The economic impacts of the proposed recreational measures are discussed in a previous section.
Social impacts from recreational measures are related to economic impacts to the extent that the
economic impacts reduce the value or satisfaction derived from taking a recreational trip. For the
most part, it is assumed that recreational groundfish fishermen derive more satisfaction from
keeping fish than from the sport of catching them. As a result, the social impacts associated with
the measures that reduce the ability to keep fish are expected to be more significant than they
would in other recreational fisheries where catching fish for sport is more important. These
measures include minimum fish sizes and recreational possession limits.

7.6.5.3.3 Atlantic Halibut Minimum Size
The increase in minimum size for halibut may increase regulatory discarding, and may negatively
affect fishermen’s attitudes toward management. The new size was selected to match the median
length for maturity for female fish, which is a rationale the industry seemed to support. However,
more fish than before will be caught that are smaller than the minimum size and will need to be
discarded. Because Atlantic halibut are rarely caught in either the commercial or recreational
fishery, some fishermen believe the increased minimum size is merely a nuisance regulation with
little benefit.

7.6.5.3.4 Prohibition of Retention of Atlantic Wolffish
Prohibiting the retention of wolffish is unlikely to have significant social impacts. Fishermen
have stated that the fish are rarely caught, and therefore do not economically rely on them. There
is a slight potential safety issue in that the fish are dangerous to handle due to a poor
temperament. Fishermen may be slightly inconvenienced devising strategies to return them to the
water, but will not likely suffer any major difficulties.

7.6.5.3.5 Implementation of Additional Sectors/Modifications to Existing
Sectors
In general, the implementation of sectors is seen as an opportunity to mitigate some of the harsh
effects of the effort control alternatives by allowing participants to fish under a TAC in exchange
for relief from many of the regulations. The impact to particular individuals and communities will
depend on whether they choose to join a sector and whether a community has a large proportion
of individuals in sectors in comparison with the common pool.
Sectors have the potential to be relationship-building or to breed disputes and strife, depending on
the success of the individual organization. Participants in a sector become responsible for sharing
resources and dividing shares of catch and profits amongst themselves. If relationships are good
between members, a sense of community and partnership could flourish. However, the opposite
could happen if sector members have bad interactions or do not cooperate. While sectors are a
form of catch shares that has extensive support among government agencies (including NOAA)
and some environmental organizations, their application in the multispecies fishery has received a
mixed reception from fishermen. There are those who welcome this opportunity to move away
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

770

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Social Impacts

from the effort control system, but others are concerned that sectors will lead to further industry
consolidation and make it more difficult for independent small vessel owners to remain in the
industry.
The three factors which are most likely to be influenced by the implementation of sectors are
regulatory discarding, changes in occupational opportunities and community infrastructure, and
formation of attitudes. One of the guiding principles behind sectors is that discards will be
reduced when participants fish under a quota. The elimination of trip limits and the knowledge of
how much of each species is allocated should lead sectors to make wise decisions that greatly
reduce or end discarding. Reduced discarding, in turn, will lead to more positive attitudes about
management. The relief from many burdensome and complicated regulatory requirements will
also improve attitudes toward management, and reduce the negative social impacts of other
measures in the amendment. Occupational opportunities may arise from the emergence of sectors,
including monitoring and administrative jobs. The opportunities for fishermen, too, will likely
change as they must coordinate with others in their sector to maximize efficiency. If sectors
become popular enough, community infrastructure could increase as more relationships are built
and decisions are made communally regarding business operations. Fishing industry
infrastructure might decline, however, if sector vessels fish more efficiently and make fewer trips.
There could be reduced needs for gear suppliers, ice, maintenance personnel, etc.
Fishermen who are not in a sector, however, may have a different view towards sector formation.
Allocations between sector and common pool vessels are likely to be a contentious issue. Since
the sub-component of ACL allocated to the common pool will be influenced by how many people
join sectors, there may be questions of fairness and legitimacy raised.
One negative impact that may result from sector management measures is related to the treatment
of windowpane flounders, ocean pout, and SNE/MA winter flounder. Sector vessels cannot retain
these stocks, but the sectors do not receive an allocation for them. As a result, there is no
incentive for sector vessels to limit their catches of these stocks. Any excessive catches of these
stocks will lead to overages f the ACL and will trigger AMs for non-sector vessels. This is likely
to lead to negative attitudes among those fishermen who either choose not to join a sector or who
are not welcomed into a sector.
It is difficult to predict how these conflicting reactions will develop over time. It is likely that
communities with large numbers of sector participants will benefit from the increased flexibility,
and ability to tailor regulations that should result from sector formation. Other communities may
resent sector success in these areas. If the sectors are successful, it may encourage other
fishermen to form a sector and could lead to improved attitudes towards fishery management. If
sectors cause additional management challenges, the opposite reaction may develop.
Sector TACs/ACE
Sector TACs, or quotas, have the potential to significantly impact all five SIA factors that have
been identified in this assessment: regulatory discarding, safety, disruption in daily living,
changes in occupational opportunities and community infrastructure, and formation of attitudes.
Management that uses TACs does have some potential social benefits. It can provide some
stability to the fishing regulations, at least on an annual basis. This can allow for better business
planning over the short-term. The use of TACs also creates the potential to generate long-term
positive social impacts resulting from the ability to meet the conservation objectives of the
management program. If TACs are set appropriately and enforced adequately, biological
objectives should be met, eliminating the need to increase restrictions on the fishery in the future.
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

771

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Social Impacts

Meeting biological objectives ensures an improved revenues stream over the long-term as well.
Furthermore, the adoption of a TAC management program for sectors would eliminate nearshore
seasonal area closures in order to provide all vessels with equal access to the resource, unlike
some other proposed measures that impact small or remote vessels more harshly. This would
likely improve safety, especially for smaller fishing operations that are pursuing the quota.
Interaction with Common Pool Vessels/Universal Exemptions
The Proposed Action attempts to further define the general principle that sectors are not
responsible for overfishing by other components of the fishery. While this is expected to benefit
fishermen who join sectors, and the communities within which they reside, it could lead to
friction between sector members and common-pool fishermen. It is possible that in the future
additional restrictions could be imposed on one component while the other component continues
fishing, causing resentment within communities. Nevertheless, many fishermen likely welcome
the concept that they are responsible for the consequences of their own fishing actions and are not
to be penalized by the overfishing of others. While this section modifies language adopted by
Amendment 13, it does not substantially alter the concept adopted in that amendment and the
impacts are unlikely to be much different than if the No Action alternative was adopted.
This section also defines and expands the effort control measures that do not apply to sector
vessels. The expanded list allows sector vessels to access some part of the GOM rolling closures.
This will be welcomed by sector participants who will have increased opportunities to target their
ACE. They may also benefit by reduced competition since vessels in the common pool will still
be restricted by the closures. Communities with sector vessels may benefit from a more regular
supply of groundfish to markets with the increased access to fishing grounds afforded sector
vessels. This could lead to more reliable employment and a gradual expansion of access to
markets as customers take advantage of a more regular supply of groundfish. On the whole, this
should benefit fishing communities.
Movement Between Sectors
The Proposed Action does not modify provisions adopted in Amendment 13 that allow sectors to
establish their own rules for movement between sectors (the No Action alternative was the only
alternative considered and was adopted). This measure is administrative in nature and no
noticeable impacts are expected beyond the general benefits expected from sectors.

7.6.5.3.6 Accountability Measures
Commercial Accountability Measures – Non Sector Vessels
The Proposed Action adopts a differential DAS AM for FY 2010 and FY 2011 for non-sector
vessels, and then implements a hard TAC AM in FY 2012. As a result, the social impacts of the
AMs for these vessels will change over time.
The effects of proposed differential DAS counting and DAS reductions have been thoroughly
described in the previous section under general impacts of effort control measures (see section
7.6.4.1). The same analysis would apply if such measures were adopted as AMs. The other
proposed AM that uses a “hard” TAC backstop would lead to different impacts.
Especially in a multispecies fishery, social impacts of hard TACs can be a byproduct of several
changes in fishing behavior, including derby-style fishing, high grading, and regulatory
discarding. If a TAC is set low enough on a commercially valuable species, it can create a derby
or a race for the fish. Derby-style fishing can negatively affect the price for the species and the
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

772

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Social Impacts

revenues from the fishery if too much product is put on the market at one time. These negative
economic impacts can affect occupational opportunities in the fishery and may impact community
infrastructure over the long-term. In addition, derby-style fishing can create unsafe conditions for
a vessel or a fleet depending on how competitive the race is and what time of year the fleet is
catching the fish.
Once a quota is reached, further landings of the species are usually prohibited. This can create a
regulatory discard problem, worsened by the race to fish and a consequently shorter period of
time during which the species can be landed. In a multispecies fishery like the groundfish fishery,
it is likely that some TACs will be reached, while others will not, allowing some groundfish
species to continue to be landed. Depending on the time of year and stock area in question, this
could exacerbate problems with regulatory discarding, as the race to fish for the other quotamanaged species may force most vessels to continue to fish while discarding the species for
which the quota has already been reached.
This outcome is very likely if hard TACs are implemented as AMs in a year following an ACL
overage and combined with other measures in Amendment 16. This also can lead to high grading:
discarding that occurs when fishermen select only the highest-valued fish to land. For example, if
large cod are worth the most, fishermen may discard other marketable sizes to keep only the
largest cod, especially if the total quota is low and their opportunities to fish for groundfish are
further restricted.

Commercial Accountability Measures –Sector Vessels
AMs for sector vessels are an inherent part of the sector program. The key AM is that sector
vessels are limited to a hard TAC for each sector and must stop fishing when it is projected the
TAC will be reached. Unlike the hard TAC AM for non-sector vessels, because the sector has an
individual TAC it is less likely that derby fishing will occur because a sector can organize its
activity to prevent such a response by individual vessels. As a result, there are expected to be
positive social impacts from sector management that will not be affected by the AM for sectors.
Recreational Accountability Measures
Recreational AMs being considered are adjustments to season, adjustments to minimum size, or
adjustments to bag limits. As noted supra, it is difficult to measure social impacts of any
recreational fishing measures. Of these actions, adjustment to season seems to carry the most
significant impacts, particularly among the party/charter boat segment of the fishery. Many vessel
operators book fishing trips in advance, and last-minute changes to their season, or any closure at
all during certain months of the year, could paralyze the industry. Since most recreational
fishermen other than party/charter boat captains do not depend on the fishery for livelihood,
changes to bag limits, adjustments to minimum size, and even reasonable adjustments to season
may affect attitudes towards fisheries management or increase discarding, but the effects are not
likely to be as pervasive as with certain commercial fisheries measures. Other impacts of changes
to regulations for the recreational fishery are likely to include loss of tradition and leisure
activities.

7.6.6 Summary and Conclusions
Overall, the alternatives being considered are likely to have a negative effect on the important
social factors identified by Amendment 13. The further reductions in DAS and twenty-four hour
clock, revised trip limits, and restricted gear areas will make it more difficult for fishermen to
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

773

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Social Impacts

maintain daily routines, operate in a safe manner, and maintain a positive attitude towards the
management program. Landings and revenues have generally been declining for several years;
there should be gradual increases in the next few years if stocks rebuild as expected. The
economic impacts of this action on those communities are expected to be severe and in some
cases may threaten the existence of fishing businesses in those communities. Social impacts will
be primarily the result of commercial effort control measures and formation of sectors. There are
different impacts between the alternatives, however. The impacts will fall most heavily on vessels
and communities that are most dependent on groundfish. These tend to be the Maine, New
Hampshire, and Massachusetts ports adjacent to the Gulf of Maine, though New Bedford is also a
port that will be adversely affected.
There are some communities where the impacts may not be as severe due to elements of the
action that attempt to mitigate impacts. The implementation of sectors, the elimination of the
DAS transfer tax, and changes to SAPs may help some vessels and their communities adapt to the
restrictions in this action. These benefits may prove localized to small groups of vessels,
however, and are unlikely to change the overall perception that the social impacts of this action,
in the short term, are largely negative. In part, the extent to which fishery participants will join
sectors will be determinative of overall impacts. Successful rebuilding of groundfish stocks
should lead to future benefits for fishermen and their communities but, as noted in previous
amendments, it is not clear that current fishery participants will reap those benefits.

7.6.7 Social Impacts Analysis of Alternatives to the Proposed Action
7.6.7.1 Updates to Status Determination Criteria and Formal Rebuilding
Programs
Under the No Action alternative, the updated status determination criteria and ABC control rules
for groundfish stocks would not be adopted. Adopting new criteria is a routine process and is not
likely to have any direct social impacts. Keeping the old criteria could lead to complaints that the
management measures are not developed using the best available scientific information.

7.6.7.2

Impacts of Fishery Program Administration

7.6.7.2.1 Annual Catch Limits
The No Action alternative would not implement ACLs, which are required by the MagnusonStevens Act. Failure to adopt ACLs may have social impacts that are difficult to define. While
fishermen might initially welcome the lack of an ACL process, in the long-term the lack of ACLs
may make rebuilding progress less certain, limiting opportunities.

7.6.7.2.2 Addition of Atlantic Wolffish to the Management Unit
The No Action alternative would not add Atlantic wolffish to the management unit, and as a
result EFH would not be specified and management measures to rebuild wolffish could not be
adopted in this action. In the short term fishermen might welcome fewer regulations and
continued opportunities to land this stock (even though it is but a small component of catch).
Over a longer period, failure to manage wolffish could lead to more drastic measures in the future
that would further limit opportunities for fishermen. Other interested parties that believe wolffish

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

774

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Social Impacts

are in need of additional protection would likely form negative attitudes about the management
process if the No Action alternative were selected.

7.6.7.2.3 Sector Administration Provisions
The No Action alternative would not adopt the wide range of revised sector administration
provisions included in the Proposed Action. Many of these changes are considered essential to
expanding the use of sectors in this fishery. Failure to adopt these changes could lead to reduced
opportunities for fishermen and as a result lead to negative attitudes about the management
program. While there are some who oppose the expansion of sectors, and they may prefer that
changes not be made, the lack of clarity in sector policies that would continue under No Action
would be detrimental to the fishery as a whole. For example, the lack of an effective sector
monitoring program could lead to uncertain catch information, leading to inaccurate assessments
that would limit opportunities for all fishermen.

7.6.7.2.4 Reporting Requirements
If the No Action alternative were selected, reporting requirements would not change and there
would be no method adopted for estimating discards in-season. While this might slightly ease
reporting burdens, it is unlikely to have significant social impacts.

7.6.7.2.5 Allocation of Groundfish to the Commercial and Recreational
Groundfish Fisheries
If an allocation is not made between these two groups (the No Action alternative), then there may
be a mix of reactions. Recreational fishermen often complained that they are forced to accept
additional restrictions when catches by commercial fishermen lead to exceeding mortality targets.
As a result, recreational fishermen have negative attitudes about the management program. An
allocation is viewed as one way to avoid these situations, since recreational fishermen will be
responsible for their own catches. The reality is that commercial measures were frequently
changed between 1996 and 2004, while recreational measures were not. Commercial fishermen
might prefer not having an allocation because many object to the years selected by the Proposed
Action.
Other alternative to the Proposed Action included using different years for the basis. Again,
recreational fishermen would likely have negative attitudes if different years were used, while
commercial fishermen might prefer the different period (1996-2006). This is easily traced to
which group gets more fish under the different periods.

7.6.7.2.6 Changes to the DAS Leasing and Transfer Programs
The No Action alternative would not remove the tax on DAS transfers, would keep in place the
cap on the number of DAS that can be leased by a permit, and would not allow CPH permits to
participate in the leasing program. All of these provisions are intended to make these programs
easier to use; not adopting them can be expected to result in negative attitudes and reduced
occupational opportunities for fishermen.
In addition to the No Action alternative, the Council considered adopting a tax on DAS leases
that is equivalent to the transfer tax. Such a change would make the DAS leasing program more
costly and would reduce occupational opportunities. The Council also considered removing the
transfer tax for a fixed period; this would be expected to have similar effects.
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

775

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Social Impacts

7.6.7.2.7 Special Management Programs
The No Action alternative would not extend the Eastern U.S./Canada Haddock SAP, resulting in
negative social impacts as this would reduce occupational opportunities. Similar impacts would
be expected if the proposed changes to the CAI Hook Gear Haddock SAP and the CAII
Yellowtail SAP were not adopted. If the changes to the Category B DAS program were not
adopted, it may lead to positive social impacts as this program could be used to target pollock.

7.6.7.3

Impacts of Management Alternatives to Meet Mortality Objectives

7.6.7.3.1 Commercial Fishery Management Measures
The No Action alternative would not adopt revised management measures for common-pool
vessels. When compared to the Proposed Action, this would result in positive social benefits
because the opportunities to fish would be far greater: there are fewer DAS reductions and fewer
limits on fishing opportunities. While it is true trip limits would remain low, which may lead to
higher regulatory discards and resulting negative attitudes than under the Proposed Action, the
greater number of DAS available would likely outweigh this concern. The two other alternatives
(Options 2A and 4) would likely have similar negative social impacts as the Proposed Action.
Adopting the drop chain requirement for SNE/MA small mesh fisheries would likely to have
mixed social impacts. It should ultimately lead to less discarding, improved attitudes, and more
occupational opportunities as an effectively selective multispecies fishery can sustain greater
effort. The problem is that this measure is imposed on fishermen participating in other fisheries
and they may or may not benefit from improved groundfish stock status. Fishermen in other
fisheries may also be concerned that the requirement will reduce their ability to effectively target
species such as summer flounder, scup, black sea bass, and squid. These fishermen will have to
pay for revised net configuration with no real expectation that it will increase revenues in these
fisheries in the future, which may lead to frustration and cause some disruption in daily living
during acquisition and installation of the gear.
Not implementing the GOM haddock sink gillnet pilot program would limit opportunities for
gillnet gear to target GOM haddock. These reduced opportunities would add to the negative
social impacts of the management program.
Retaining the current haddock minimum size would have negative social impacts. Discards might
increase and fewer fish would be retained.

7.6.7.3.2 Recreational Fishery Management Measures
The social impacts of the proposed recreational measures are difficult to discern, in part because
many participants are not associated with a primary or secondary port group: passengers on
party/charter vessels come from a wide area and are often not specifically associated with a
fishing community. For the party/charter operators that participated in the development of the
management program, there was resentment that any measures were contemplated. When
compared to the No Action alternative attitudes are likely to be negative, but the Proposed Action
is an improvement over other alternatives that were considered.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

776

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Social Impacts

7.6.7.3.3 Atlantic Halibut Minimum Size
The No Action alternative would not increase the minimum size for halibut. When compared to
the Proposed Action this may result in a small positive social impact, as some fishermen think
increasing the size is a nuisance regulation. Given the relative unimportance of the halibut catch,
these impacts would be minor.

7.6.7.3.4 Prohibition of Retention of Atlantic Wolffish
Allowing the retention of Atlantic wolffish (the No Action alternative) is not likely to have
noticeable social impacts given the small catches of this stock.

7.6.7.3.5 Implementation of Additional Sectors/Modifications to Existing
Sectors
The No Action alternative would not adopt additional sectors or modify the existing sectors. The
social impacts of this alternative are likely to be mixed and reflect each individual’s personal
philosophy about sectors and catch share management. The three factors which are most likely to
be influenced by the implementation of sectors are regulatory discarding, changes in
occupational opportunities and community infrastructure, and formation of attitudes. Regulatory
discards would only be affected by changes in effort controls if new sectors are not adopted, and
would likely be higher than under the Proposed Action. It is not clear how occupational
opportunities would be affected: some fishermen think sectors will reduce opportunities because
of consolidation; while others think sectors are the best chance to preserve community access.
And attitudes to the management system depend on whether sectors are viewed as desirable or
not.

7.6.7.3.6 Accountability Measures
Commercial Accountability Measures – Non-sector Vessels
The Council considered a No Action alternative that would not have adopted AMs. In the shortterm this may have resulted in positive social impacts. AMs have the potential to affect attitudes
and occupational opportunities in negative ways, as discussed in section 7.6.5.3.1. Without AMs,
these negative impacts would not occur. Over the long term, however, the lack of AMs could lead
to exceeding mortality targets, which would result in additional restrictions in the future. This
could also lead to negative social impacts as occupational opportunities would be decreased.
The Council also considered adopting either differential DAS as an AM, or a hard TAC AM (the
Proposed Action uses both forms, starting with differential DAS for two years and then adopting
the hard TAC AM). Choosing one alternative might have slightly less negative social impacts.
The use of two different AMs over a three-year period increase uncertainty about the
management plan and future measures. If only one AM is selected, some of this uncertainty is
removed.
Recreational Accountability Measures
The alternatives to the Proposed Action for recreational AMs differ primarily in how the AMs are
implemented. Option 1 would have allowed NMFS to choose the AM without any Council input;
this likely would lead to more negative attitudes than under either the Proposed Action or Option
2 because fishermen would feel they were not consulted about the AM. But the reality is that the
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

777

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Impacts on Other Fisheries

specific AMs chosen will have more impacts on attitudes and opportunities than the process used
to adopt the AMs, and any differences between the Proposed Action and the alternatives are
probably minor.

7.7

Impacts on Other Fisheries

7.7.1 Overview
The M-S Act requires that management actions evaluate the impacts of proposed measures on
participants in the fisheries and fishing communities affected by the plan, participants in the
fisheries conducted in adjacent areas under the authority of another Council, and the safety of
human life at sea. Economic and community impacts of the alternatives being considered on
groundfish fishermen and their communities are detailed in sections 7.5 and 7.6. Impacts on
safety are also described in section 7.6. This section summarizes the possible impacts of the
alternatives under consideration on other fisheries, including those in areas adjacent to the
authority of this Council. These impacts are discussed in a general nature given the complexity of
the alternatives under consideration and the difficulty in predicting behavioral reactions to those
measures.
While many of the alternatives under consideration are administrative in nature and will likely
have little direct impact on other fisheries, the requirements to reduce fishing mortality and the
measures necessary to achieve those reductions could shift fishing effort into other fisheries as
fishermen attempt to mitigate losses in groundfish revenues. This might occur whether most
fishermen choose to remain under the effort control program or choose to participate in sectors. In
either case, the amount of time spent fishing for groundfish is likely to decrease. This is because
vessels will be subject either because of restrictive limits on DAS use (including DAS reductions
and counting DAS in 24-hour increments) or because of the efficiencies associated with fishing
within sectors. If fishing within sectors proves to be efficient the profitability of groundfish
vessels should increase. Whether this will reduce the incentive to participate in other fisheries or
will in fact encourage expanding investments to participate in those fisheries is difficult to
predict.
Designation of EFH for Atlantic wolffish, under any of the alternatives being considered in this
amendment, would not have any impact on other fisheries conducted in areas adjacent to the area
under the authority of the NEFMC. Habitat management measures that might be implemented in
the Mid-Atlantic region in the future to minimize the impacts of fishing, or to conserve marine
habitats that are determined to be affected by non-fishing activities, would be based on EFH
designations for other species and life stages.
The ability to move between fisheries is constrained in part by the permits held by individual
vessels and in part by the fisheries that are available in the area that the vessel typically fishes.
While vessels operators could choose to relocate to take advantage of other fishing opportunities
there are disincentives to do so: difficulty arranging dock space, unfamiliarity with fishing
grounds, etc.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

778

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Impacts on Other Fisheries

summarizes the permits in other plans that were held by vessels holding a northeast multispecies
permit in permit year 2008. This action will have the most impact on limited access multispecies
permit holders (Categories A, C, D, F).
The management plans in the Northeast Region of NMFS are a combination of limited access and
open-access fisheries. In general, when a fishery has both types of permits, the limited access
permit categories in a fishery tend to provide more opportunities to harvest another species and
the open access categories are more constrained (often to an incidental catch limit). Examining
the table shows that groundfish limited access permit holders have the most limited access
permits in the following FMPs: summer flounder (470), monkfish (461), scup (424), black sea
bass (347), lobster trap fisheries (over 320), and squid/mackerel/butterfish (273). Three of these
fisheries are managed by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC), one is
jointly managed by the NEFMC and the MAFMC, and one is managed by NMFS in federal
waters under ACFCMA. In terms of open access fisheries that do not have any limited access
permits, multispecies permit holders have the most overlap with the small-mesh multispecies
fisheries (all limited access permit holders are eligible to participate), spiny dogfish (911), and the
skate fishery (898). Spiny dogfish is jointly managed by the NEFMC and the MAFMC while the
skate fishery is managed by the NEFMC. The possible impacts on the summer flounder, scup,
black sea bass, squid/mackerel/butterfish, monkfish, and skate fisheries will be discussed in more
detail in the following sections. Impacts on the spiny dogfish, small mesh multispecies, and
lobster trap fisheries will also be briefly discussed.
In addition to these fisheries that may be affected by specific regulations or displacement of
effort, this action modifies two SAPs and a permitting restriction. These changes may have
impacts on the herring and scallop fisheries that are also discussed below.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

779

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Impacts on Other Fisheries

Table 298 – Other permits held by vessels with a Northeast Multispecies FMP permit for permit year
2008. Permit categories that are underlined in bold italics are limited access, moratorium, or
restricted eligibility permits
PLAN
MULTISPECIES PERMITS
BLUEFISH
BLACK SEA BASS
DOGFISH
SUMMER FLOUNDER
HERRING

LA GEN CAT SCALLOPS

LOBSTER

MONKFISH

OCEAN QUAHOG
RED CRAB
SCALLOPs

SCUP

CAT
1
2
1
2
1
1
2
A
B
C
D
A
B
C
1
2
A1
A2
A3
A4
A5
A5W
A6
AOC
A
B
C
D
E
F
H
6
7
A
B
2
3
4
5
6
7
1
2

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

A
1,058
932
64
347
57
911
470
62
11
4
37
773
123
56
112
681
4
320
158
25
17
3
7
26
85

C
12
12
3
4
2
8
3
3

MULTISPECIES PERMIT CATEGORY
D
E
F
HA
HB
I
J
72 47 31 129 1,124
721 275
60 42 32 103
924
331 253
18
26
305
662
10 18 10
6
163
32 109
13
18
275
612
49 45 31
66
806
423 263
6 40
9
2
57
8 230
14
1
22
301
634
1
1
11
4

39
3

2
2
2
2

2
1

3
1
11
6
1
1

2
33
4
3
12
40

20
4
1

5
10
4
1
2

21
1
4

1
4

26
13
7

8
21
3

1
2

166
294
524
1
347
3
607
1

34
1
9
3
1
424
61

2
3

780

9
12

2
687
42
11
14
48
15
224
90
35
24
15
2
16
22
6
14
5
2
721

83
10
457
1
7

341
1
2
15
22
32
12
1
3
6
5

7
20

110
266

7
11
1
1
1
1
4

355

2
120

2
5
11
1

8
219
34
14
71
165

22
575

128
5
136

221
1
213
201
1
1
43
20
9
100

K
939
835
171
180
167
798
203
176
19
9
728
80
23
72
166
10
133
61
35
32
18
6
12
21
8
16
84
4
684
1
247
7
611
1
129

30
10
2
140
160

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Impacts on Other Fisheries

PLAN
SURF CLAM
SKATES
SQUID MACKEREL BUTTERFISH

TILEFISH

CAT
1
1
1
2
3
4
5
A
B
C
D

A
357
898
273
55
664
811
44
1
2
9
723

9
2
7
8

MULTISPECIES PERMIT CATEGORY
D
E
F
HA
HB
I
J
9 40 11
2
83
2 225
41 43 28
45
641
294 244
12
3
2
5
55
13
27
282
604
36 39 23
50
637
201 218
44 43 27
76
759
259 234
3
2
21
1
1
1
1
3
1
33 40 22
37
615
360 240

K
251
747
49
162
723
776
22
1
2
714

7.7.2 Summer Flounder
The summer flounder (fluke) fishery is managed by the MAFMC. The primary commercial
fishery management measure is a quota that is distributed to individual states. Other federal
regulations include minimum mesh size and a minimum fish size. States typically restrict harvest
to their quota using seasons and trip limits. The stock is currently under a rebuilding program
with a deadline of January 1, 2013. The summer flounder stock was last assessed in 2008 (SAW
47). The assessment determined the stock was not overfished and overfishing was not occurring
in 2007. Fishing mortality in 2008 (0.288) was slightly above the fishing mortality needed to
meet the rebuilding target (0.274). The fishery occurs primarily in southern New England and the
Mid-Atlantic area but there is some indication that the stock is expanding to the north and east.
The following proposed measures are not expected to directly affect the summer flounder fishery:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Revisions to status determination criteria and formal rebuilding programs
Annual Catch Limits: Option 2 takes into account the catch of groundfish species in
other fisheries. This action does not propose a specific ACL for the summer flounder
fishery but it is possible a specific ACL may be considered in the future.
Addition of Atlantic Wolffish to the Management unit
Sector administration provisions: these options will not have direct impacts on the
summer flounder fishery, but the formation of additional sectors may and will be
discussed below.
Reporting requirements
Allocation of groundfish to the commercial and recreational groundfish fisheries
Special management programs
Periodic Adjustment Process
Possession of a limited access multispecies permit and a limited access scallop permit
by the same vessel
Recreational Management measures
Atlantic halibut minimum size
Prohibition on retention of Atlantic wolffish
Accountability measures

781

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Impacts on Other Fisheries

essentially allows the permanent stacking of groundfish DAS from multiple permits onto one
permit. The conservation tax reduces the number of DAS that can be transferred and is seen as
inhibiting the transfer of multispecies permits. Removing the tax is expected to increase the
number of permits that are combined into one groundfish permit. In the process of stacking
groundfish DAS, duplicate permits are pared to one permit. There are 528 limited access summer
flounder permits held by vessels with limited access multispecies permits. At least some of the
transfers that take place are likely to be between two groundfish permits that each hold a limited
access summer flounder permit. In the process, one summer flounder limited access permit will
be eliminated. As a result, it is likely that the total number of summer flounder permits will
decline. It is difficult to predict the number of permits or whether the remaining permits will be
more active in the fishery. Fishing activity could increase several ways in spite of the reduced
number of permits. If the eliminated permit did not use its permit but the remaining permit does
then summer flounder catches might increase. Since the groundfish vessel will have more DAS
available it may catch more summer flounder while using those DAS than occurred when the
permits were on different vessels if fished in an area with a greater abundance of summer
flounder.
This action also removes the cap on number of DAS that can be leased, and allows permits in the
CPH category to participate in the DAS leasing program. These two changes may increase the
number of DAS that are leased. This could result in more groundfish vessels leasing away their
DAS to other vessels, and then participating in other fisheries.
Four alternatives were considered to reduce fishing mortality by groundfish vessels that choose
not to join sectors. The first alternative is the No Action alternative; this alternative includes an
18 percent DAS reduction for all groundfish DAS vessels. The other three alternatives include
measures that reduce groundfish fishing opportunities on the order of fifty percent but use
different measures to do so. All three of the alternatives are designed to achieve large reductions
in fishing mortality for SNE/MA yellowtail flounder and SNE/MA winter flounder. Vessel
operators that rely on these stocks for revenue would be expected to look for other opportunities
in the SNE/MA area, and the summer flounder fishery is a likely candidate.
Option 2A adopts the 18 percent DAS reduction and imposes additional differential DAS
counting areas. In the SNE/MA area DAS will be counted at a 3:1 rate. While this is likely to
reduce any bycatch of summer flounder by groundfish vessels as this will reduce effort used in
the area, these severe restrictions may shift fishing effort into the summer flounder fishery.
The Proposed Action, Option 3A reduces DAS by 50 percent and counts all DAS in 24-hour
increments. There is no differential DAS counting in this area but groundfish vessels would be
required to use gear that reduces the catch of flounders in an area of SNE. This measure would
likely reduce bycatch of summer flounder by groundfish fishing vessels but might also shift effort
onto the summer flounder stock. This might occur since opportunities to target regulated
groundfish in the SNE and MA areas would be severely constrained, forcing fishermen to look
for other opportunities.
Option 4 reduces DAS by 40 percent and implements large restricted gear area in SNE. This
option would likely reduce bycatch the least since it might allow more groundfish fishing effort in
the Mid-Atlantic area that the other two options. This option might also shift effort into the
summer flounder fishery.
Because the summer flounder fishery is managed using a quota, it is not likely that the shifts in
effort described here would result in overfishing. It is possible that an increased number of fishing
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

782

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Impacts on Other Fisheries

trips might have adverse impacts on the economic performance of the fishery as the quota is
distributed among more vessels or among more trips. This could lead to a need for even smaller
trip limits in this fishery which might increase discards.
This action considered, but did not adopt, a requirement that vessels fishing with cod end mesh
smaller than 6.5 inches must use a net equipped with drop chains or large mesh panels in the front
of the net. The minimum cod end mesh size for the summer flounder fishery is 5.5 inch diamond
or 6.0 square mesh. No experimental data is available to indicate if using these types of net will
affect catches of summer flounder, but since the nets are designed to reduce flounder catches it is
not unreasonable to assume that if this measure were adopted summer flounder fishermen will
choose to use 6.5 inch mesh to avoid fishing for flounders with a net that cannot catch flounders.
The impacts of this requirement on the fishery are unclear.
This action is considering implementing seventeen additional sectors, including several that
propose to operate in the SNE/MA area. The operation of sectors in this area will be severely
constrained by the lack of available catch for SNE/MA winter flounder. Sector regulations will
prevent these vessels from fishing for groundfish unless they can demonstrate they can do so
without catching this stock. As a result, vessels that choose to participate in these sectors may be
forced to look for other opportunities, such as the summer flounder fishery. If effort shifts into
this fishery as a result of sector formation the impacts would be similar to those resulting from the
restrictions on DAS in the other options.

7.7.3 Scup
The scup fishery is managed by the MAFMC. The primary commercial fishery management
measure is a quota that is distributed to three trimester periods and to individual states. Other
federal regulations include minimum mesh size, gear restricted areas, and a minimum fish size.
States typically restrict harvest to their quota using seasons and trip limits. The scup stock was
last assessed in 2008 (DPWG 2009). The assessment determined the stock was not overfished and
overfishing was not occurring in 2007. The fishery occurs primarily in southern New England
and the Mid-Atlantic area.
The same measures not expected to impact the summer flounder fishery are not expected to
impact the scup fishery. The impacts of the effort control measures to control mortality and the
addition of sectors are also expected to be similar to those on the summer flounder fishery. The
SNE/MA Small Mesh Gear Requirement – which was not adopted – would have had different
impacts. While there are no experiments using the exact net design proposed in this action Pol
(2001) summarized the results of an experiment in Nantucket Sound that compared the catch rates
using a raised footrope trawl for eleven pairs of comparison tows on two different vessels. Scup
catch rates were highly variable, ranging from zero to 1,382 lbs/hr for the raised footrope trawl
and zero to 9,735 lbs/hr for the chain sweep tows. Because of the limited number of tows and the
highly variable catch rates, the rates observed were not statistically different. If the results of this
small experiment reflect the experiences in the commercial fishery, scup fishermen may choose to
use the drop-chain net rather than use a larger minimum mesh size. The minimum mesh size for
scup is five inches.
The action proposes several changes to the DAS leasing and transfer programs (see section 5.2.6).
This action eliminates the DAS transfer program conservation tax. The DAS transfer program
essentially allows the permanent stacking of groundfish DAS from multiple permits onto one
permit. The DAS transfer program essentially allows the permanent stacking of groundfish DAS
from multiple permits onto one permit. The conservation tax reduces the number of DAS that can
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

783

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Impacts on Other Fisheries

be transferred and is seen as inhibiting the transfer of multispecies permits. Removing the tax is
expected to increase the number of permits that are combined into one groundfish permit. In the
process of stacking groundfish DAS, duplicate permits are pared to one permit. There are 463
limited access scup permits held by vessels with limited access multispecies permits. At least
some of the transfers that take place are likely to be between two groundfish permits that each
hold a limited access scup permit. In the process, one scup limited access permit will be
eliminated. As a result, it is likely that the total number of scup permits will decline. It is difficult
to predict the number of permits or whether the remaining permits will be more active in the
fishery. Fishing activity could increase several ways in spite of the reduced number of permits. If
the eliminated permit did not use its permit but the remaining permit does then scup catches
might increase. Since the groundfish vessel will have more DAS available it may catch more scup
while using those DAS than occurred when the permits were on different vessels if fished in an
area with a greater abundance of scup.

7.7.4 Black Sea Bass
The black sea bass fishery is managed by the MAFMC. The primary commercial fishery
management measure is a quota that is distributed to individual states. Other federal regulations
include minimum mesh size and a minimum fish size. States typically restrict harvest to their
quota using seasons and trip limits. The stock was last assessed in 2008 (DPWG 2009). The
assessment determined the stock was not overfished and overfishing was not occurring in 2007.
The fishery occurs primarily in southern New England and the Mid-Atlantic area. This
determination is a change in stock status – the previous assessment used an index-based model
that estimated the stock was overfished.
The same measures not expected to impact the summer flounder fishery are not expected to
impact the black sea bass fishery. The impacts of the effort control measures to control mortality
and the addition of sectors are also expected to be similar to those on the summer flounder
fishery. The SNE/MA Small Mesh Gear Requirement – which was not adopted – would have had
different impacts. The minimum mesh size for black sea bass is 4.5 inches. There are no
experiments using the exact net design proposed in this action, and the work of Pol (2001) did not
extend to black sea bass. The impacts of this measure on this fishery cannot be estimated.
The action proposes several changes to the DAS leasing and transfer programs (see section 5.2.6).
This action eliminates the DAS transfer program conservation tax. The DAS transfer program
essentially allows the permanent stacking of groundfish DAS from multiple permits onto one
permit. The DAS transfer program essentially allows the permanent stacking of groundfish DAS
from multiple permits onto one permit. The conservation tax reduces the number of DAS that can
be transferred and is seen as inhibiting the transfer of multispecies permits. Removing the tax is
expected to increase the number of permits that are combined into one groundfish permit. In the
process of stacking groundfish DAS, duplicate permits are pared to one permit. There are 389
limited access black sea bass permits held by vessels with limited access multispecies permits. At
least some of the transfers that take place are likely to be between two groundfish permits that
each holds a limited access black sea bass permit. In the process, one black sea bass limited
access permit will be eliminated. As a result of these two options, it is likely that the total number
of black sea bass permits will decline. It is difficult to predict the number of permits or whether
the remaining permits will be more active in the fishery. Fishing activity could increase several
ways in spite of the reduced number of permits. If the eliminated permit did not use its permit but
the remaining permit does then black sea bass catches might increase. Since the groundfish vessel
will have more DAS available it may catch more black sea bass while using those DAS than
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

784

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Impacts on Other Fisheries

occurred when the permits were on different vessels if fished in an area with a greater abundance
of black sea bass.

7.7.5 Squid/Mackerel/Butterfish
The squid/mackerel/butterfish fisheries are managed by the MAFMC. The primary commercial
fishery management measure is quotas. Other federal regulations include minimum mesh sizes
that differ for the three fisheries. Loligo squid was last assessed in 2001 (SAW 34), butterfish was
last assessed in 2003 (SAW 38), and mackerel and illex squid were last assessed in 2005 (SAW
42). Overfishing was not occurring on loligo but there was no biomass reference point.
Overfishing was not occurring on butterfish but the stock was overfished. Mackerel was not
subject to overfishing and was not overfished. It was not possible to evaluate the status of illex
squid.
The same measures not expected to impact the summer flounder fishery are not expected to
impact the squid/mackerel/butterfish fisheries. The impacts of the effort control measures to
control mortality and the addition of sectors are also expected to be similar to those on the
summer flounder fishery. The SNE/MA Small Mesh Gear Requirement – which was not adopted
– would have different impacts. While there are no experiments using the exact net design
proposed in this action Pol (2001) summarized the results of an experiment in Nantucket Sound
that compared the loligo squid catch rates using a raised footrope trawl for eleven pairs of
comparison tows on two different vessels. There was no significant difference in catch rates
between the raised footrope trawl tested and the same net using a chain sweep. The size of squid
caught, however, was smaller in the raised footrope net. No explanation was offered for this
difference but it was remarkably consistent for the two different vessels and the two different
time periods for the tows. Fishermen speculated that the larger squid remain closer to the bottom
and as a result the raised footrope trawl is less effective at catching them, but there were no video
observations to support this hypothesis. This result suggests that the drop-chain net requirement
could affect loligo squid catches and may result in catching larger numbers of squid for a given
quota weight since the net appears to catch smaller individuals.
The action proposes several changes to the DAS leasing and transfer programs (see section 5.2.6).
This action eliminates the DAS transfer program conservation tax. The DAS transfer program
essentially allows the permanent stacking of groundfish DAS from multiple permits onto one
permit. The DAS transfer program essentially allows the permanent stacking of groundfish DAS
from multiple permits onto one permit. The conservation tax reduces the number of DAS that can
be transferred and is seen as inhibiting the transfer of multispecies permits. Removing the tax is
expected to increase the number of permits that are combined into one groundfish permit. In the
process of stacking groundfish DAS, duplicate permits are pared to one permit. There are 288
limited access squid/mackerel/butterfish permits held by vessels with limited access multispecies
permits. At least some of the transfers that take place are likely to be between two groundfish
permits that each holds a limited access squid/mackerel/butterfish permit. In the process, one
squid/mackerel/butterfish limited access permit will be eliminated. As a result of these two
options, it is likely that the total number of squid/mackerel/butterfish permits will decline. It is
difficult to predict the number of permits or whether the remaining permits will be more active in
the fishery. Fishing activity could increase several ways in spite of the reduced number of
permits. If the eliminated permit did not use its permit but the remaining permit does then
squid/mackerel/butterfish catches might increase. Since the groundfish vessel will have more
DAS available it may catch more squid/mackerel/butterfish while using those DAS than occurred
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

785

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Impacts on Other Fisheries

when the permits were on different vessels if fished in an area with a greater abundance of
squid/mackerel/butterfish.

7.7.6 Monkfish
The monkfish fishery is jointly managed by the NEFMC and the MAFMC. The directed fishery is
managed through an effort control system that includes DAS limits and possession limits. A
substantial portion of monkfish is landed as incidental catch in other fisheries; this catch is
controlled by incidental catch limits. Monkfish was last assessed in 2007 (DPWG 2007). The
assessment developed new status determination criteria for both the northern and southern stocks
of monkfish and concluded that neither stock was overfished nor subject to overfishing.
There is extensive overlap between the management of this fishery and the management of the
multispecies and scallop fisheries. For this reason, more of the measures being proposed are
likely to have an impact on the monkfish fishery. In the past the monkfish plan has relied in part
on DAS limits in the groundfish and scallop plans to limit monkfish fishing effort. Vessels that
possess a limited access monkfish permit and a limited access groundfish permit are required to
use both a monkfish and a groundfish DAS when fishing for monkfish except in some
circumstances. Monkfish is often caught on scallop and groundfish fishing trips and given its
value is a key component of revenue for groundfish trips – less so for scallops given the high
value of scallops. The following measures are not expected to directly impact the monkfish
fishery:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Revisions to status determination criteria and formal rebuilding programs
Annual Catch Limits: Option 2 takes into account the catch of groundfish species in
other fisheries. This action does not propose a specific ACL for the monkfish fishery
but it is possible a specific ACL may be considered in the future.
Addition of Atlantic Wolffish to the Management Unit
Sector administration provisions: these options will not have direct impacts on the
monkfish fishery, but the formation of additional sectors may and will be discussed
below.
Reporting requirements
Allocation of groundfish to the commercial and recreational groundfish fisheries
Periodic Adjustment Process
Recreational management measures
Atlantic halibut minimum size
Prohibition on retention of Atlantic wolffish

The action proposes several changes to the DAS leasing and transfer programs (see section 5.2.6).
This action eliminates the DAS transfer program conservation tax. The DAS transfer program
essentially allows the permanent stacking of groundfish DAS from multiple permits onto one
permit. The DAS transfer program essentially allows the permanent stacking of groundfish DAS
from multiple permits onto one permit. The conservation tax reduces the number of DAS that can
be transferred and is seen as inhibiting the transfer of multispecies permits. Removing the tax is
expected to increase the number of permits that are combined into one groundfish permit. In the
process of stacking groundfish DAS, duplicate permits are pared to one permit. There are 461
groundfish individual DAS permits that have a limited access monkfish permit, and 524 permits
that have an open access monkfish permit. At least some of the transfers that take place are likely
to be between two groundfish permits that each hold a limited access monkfish permit. In the
process, one monkfish limited access permit will be eliminated. Similarly, some transfers may
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

786

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Impacts on Other Fisheries

take place between two vessels when only one has a limited access monkfish permit – in this case
an open access monkfish permit will be eliminated. As a result of these two options, it is likely
that the total number of monkfish permits will decline. It is difficult to predict the number of
permits or whether the remaining permits will be more active in the monkfish fishery. Monkfish
fishing activity could increase several ways in spite of the reduced number of permits. The
impacts will depend on the monkfish DAS used by the eliminated permit. If the eliminated permit
did not use its monkfish DAS but the remaining permit does then monkfish catches might
increase. Since the groundfish vessel will have more DAS available it may retain more monkfish
while using those DAS than occurred when the permits were on different vessels. Because the
remaining permit will have more groundfish DAS, the combined permit will have fewer monkfish
only DAS that can only be used in exempted fishing areas.
Option 5 proposes to allow vessels in the CPH category to lease DAS. This might increase the
number of DAS available for leasing or the number of permits that are combined in the DAS
transfer program. Either result might increase the groundfish DAS available to be used to target
monkfish in conjunction with a monkfish DAS.
This action adopts a number of changes to Special Management Programs (see section 4.2.7). The
proposed expansion of the CA I Hook Gear Haddock SAP is not expected to impact the monkfish
fishery. The proposed reauthorization of the Eastern U.S./Canada Haddock SAP (section 4.2.7.3)
provides an opportunity to use Category B DAS. The landing of monkfish on those DAS is
constrained to the applicable incidental catch limit and trawl gear used in the program is designed
to minimize the catch of bottom-tending species such as monkfish. For this reason this proposal is
not expect to impact the monkfish fishery. Changes are also proposed to the CAII Yellowtail
Flounder SAP which will allow vessels access to CAII to target haddock. The trawl gear
requirements for this expanded program are designed to reduce catches of bottom-tending species
such as monkfish. For this reason this proposal is not expected to impact the monkfish fishery.
The proposed changes to the Category B (regular) DAS program and suspension of the SNE/MA
Winter Flounder SAP are not expected to impact the monkfish fishery as these changes do not
revise opportunities to catch monkfish.
This action allows a vessel to possess a limited access multispecies and scallop permit at the same
time (section 4.2.9). The impacts of this proposal may be similar to the proposed changes to the
DAS transfer program. If multispecies and scallop permits are combined on one vessel, any
duplicate permits expire. If both permits hold a limited access monkfish permit then one of the
monkfish permits will be cancelled and the net result will be a reduction in the number of
monkfish permits. Similar to the analysis of the DAS transfer program, it is possible that
monkfish activity might increase if the vessel with the combined permits chooses to fish harder
for monkfish than the original permit holder but this is impossible to predict.
The measures most likely to have the largest impacts on the monkfish fishery are those adopted to
control groundfish mortality that results from commercial fishing. These measures include the
effort control options for vessels that do not form sectors, the implementation of additional
sectors, and the accountability measures being considered for commercial vessels.
In addition to the No Action alternative, there are three effort control options that were considered
to reduce fishing mortality by vessels that do not join sectors. All three options – as well as the
No Action option – include a reduction in allocated groundfish Category A DAS, though the size
of the reduction differs among options. The reduction in available groundfish DAS will impact
vessels with a monkfish category C or D permit that are required (for the most part) to use a
groundfish DAS while fishing for monkfish. This will reduce the opportunities to fish for
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

787

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Impacts on Other Fisheries

monkfish by these vessels. It is likely that additional vessels will have more monkfish DAS
allocated than groundfish DAS. Under current rules, the difference between the two allocations
can be used as monkfish only DAS but they must be fished as monkfish only DAS under the
requirements for monkfish A and B permits. This limits the areas that can be fished since
monkfish-only DAS can only be used in exempted fisheries. There are no monkfish trawl
exempted fisheries in the GOM and GB areas, so these options may shift trawl effort into the
Southern Monkfish Management Area (see Figure 156). There are two monkfish gillnet
exemption areas – one in the GOM and one in SNE – so the DAS reductions may not result in a
shift in monkfish gillnet effort.
Two of the effort control options would have changed either the differential DAS counting areas
or the way DAS are counted. Option 2A expands the use of differential DAS to almost the entire
GOM and GB areas and modifies the differential DAS counting areas in SNE. An additional
change in this option will affect the way differential DAS are counted. Under FW 42, a vessel
could declare that it was fishing outside the GOM differential DAS area and would not be
charged differential DAS when transiting the area. Under this option vessels will be charged the
differential DAS rate for the area they are in, including transit time. As a result of expanding the
differential DAS areas and changing the ways differential DAS are counted, vessels with a
Category C or D permit and fishing in these areas for monkfish will use groundfish DAS at
different rate than their monkfish DAS. This makes it likely that the vessel will use up its
groundfish DAS before it has used all its monkfish DAS. Unlike when where there is a difference
between groundfish and monkfish DAS allocations, the fact that a vessel uses its groundfish DAS
at a faster rate than its monkfish DAS does not entitle the permit holder to use monkfish only
DAS. The impacts on individual monkfish permit Category C and D vessels will be proportional
to their groundfish DAS allocation. A monkfish Category C and D permit holder with 10
groundfish DAS that fishes in a 2:1 area uses 10 groundfish DAS while using 5 monkfish DAS
and 5 monkfish DAS are lost; a permit holder with only 2 groundfish DAS uses those two DAS
while using one monkfish DAS and only one monkfish DAS is lost. There will be additional
monkfish DAS that cannot be used by monkfish fishermen with monkfish C and D permits,
reducing their income and likely reducing monkfish catches. This may lead to adjustments within
the monkfish plan to account for these differences.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

788

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Impacts on Other Fisheries
Figure 156 - Monkfish exempted fishing areas

GOM/GB Monkfish and Dogfish
Gillnet Exemption Area

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

789

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Impacts on Other Fisheries

The impacts of the Proposed Action, Option 3A, are similar in nature but may not be as large as
the impact of Option 2A. Option 3A will count groundfish DAS in 24-hour increments, but
monkfish DAS will continue to be counted in minutes. While this results in a difference in DAS
counting between the two plans monkfish fishermen will have a greater ability to adapt to the
difference. The difference between groundfish and monkfish DAS charged on a trip are greatest
when a monkfish vessel fishes a partial day. By modifying trip length to fish for whole days – or
as close to a whole day as possible – the difference between the groundfish and monkfish DAS
are reduced. This is an imperfect response, however. Since a vessel earns a day’s worth of a trip
limit for a partial DAS, some monkfish fishermen prefer to fish slightly more than an even day in
order to earn the additional day’s worth of a trip limit. Vessel operators will need to choose
between the value of this additional trip limit and having a closer match between the monkfish
and groundfish DAS charged.
Options 3A and 4 propose restricted gear areas that require the use of gear that does not catch
flounders. These areas overlap areas used by monkfish vessels and requiring the use of specific
gear while on a groundfish DAS may reduce the ability of monkfish C and D permit holders to
target monkfish.
While the effort control measures are likely to reduce the amount of effort available to target
monkfish – particularly for those vessels with a monkfish Category C or D permit - the creation
of additional sectors may have the opposite effect. Groundfish vessels participating in sectors will
not be required to use a groundfish DAS while targeting groundfish stocks, but will still have
their groundfish DAS allocation. These groundfish DAS can be used to target monkfish subject to
the regulations that are adopted for effort controls. If the vessels target monkfish and groundfish
on the same trips- as is often done in the GOM and north of GB - then there is no real benefit to
joining a groundfish sector as far as monkfish fishing is concerned. If the vessel is able to
selectively target groundfish and monkfish on different trips, then the vessel in a sector can
“save” its groundfish DAS for dedicated monkfish trips. This might increase the number of
groundfish DAS that are used for monkfish trips. A complicating factor is that once a sector’s
groundfish ACE for a stock is harvested, the sector cannot fish in that stock area with gear
capable of catching that stock. This means that sectors will have to plan groundfish fishing
activities carefully to make sure they do not limit monkfish opportunities.
The final measures that may impact the monkfish fishery are the accountability measures being
implemented for non-sector vessels. For FY 20110 and FY 2011, the AM under proposed adjusts
DAS counting rates based on whether an ACL is exceeded or not. This may exacerbate the
differences between monkfish and groundfish DAS that were described earlier if ACLs are
exceeded. If catches fall short of ACLs, then DAS counting is adjusted upward and the
differences between groundfish and monkfish DAS may be reduced. For FY 2012 and beyond,
the amendment overlays the effort control program with a hard TAC AM. Most stocks have a
trimester TAC which, when caught, results in a prohibition on fishing for groundfish in the
majority of the stock area for the rest of the quarter. If this AM is triggered for a particular stock,
vessels with a monkfish Category C or D permit would be unable to fish in the stock area until
the following quarter begins. In essence, monkfish fishing activity by these vessels becomes
constrained by the groundfish fishery AM. Not only does this reduce opportunities for these
monkfish vessels but it also creates a fairness issue since other monkfish vessels with category A
and B permits are allowed to continue fishing. It is not likely that NMFS will allow the monkfish
C and D vessels to continue to fish on monkfish only DAS in this situation.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

790

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Impacts on Other Fisheries

7.7.7 Skates
The Skate Fishery is managed by the NEFMC. There are seven species of skates managed
through this plan. At present the management of this fishery is closely tied to the multispecies,
groundfish, and scallop fisheries. Except for specific exempted or experimental fisheries, vessels
must be on a multispecies, monkfish, or scallop DAS to fish for skates. There are also various
gear requirements and possession limits, and vessels may also retain and land skates in certain
multispecies exempted fisheries without being on a DAS. The Council recently adopted
Amendment 3 to the skate FMP that modifies the management measures; the amendment has not
yet been reviewed and implemented by NMFS. The amendment modifies skate status
determination criteria, which may modify status determinations, but the current stock status for
the seven species is shown in Table 299. The revised SDC will determine that winter and smooth
skate would not be overfished and overfishing would not have occurred. Thorny skate would be
overfished and overfishing had been occurring (as of 2007). Other elements of Amendment 3
include the adoption of ACLs and AMs for the skate fishery, revisions to trip limits for the bait
and skate wing fisheries, and trip limits for vessels using a Category B DAS to fish for skates
regardless of gear used.

Table 299 – Current skate status. See text for pending updates.
BARNDOOR CLEARNOSE
LITTLE
ROSETTE
SMOOTH
Not
Not
Not
Not
Overfished
Overfished
Overfished Overfished
Overfished
Overfishing
Overfishing
Overfishing Overfishing
Overfishing is
is Not
is Not
is Not
is Not
Not Occurring
Occurring
Occurring
Occurring
Occurring

THORNY

WINTER

Overfished
Overfishing
is
Occurring

Overfished
Overfishing
is Not
Occurring

The following comments provide a general view of the likely impacts. The following alternatives
under consideration are not expected to directly affect the skate fishery:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Revisions to status determination criteria and formal rebuilding programs
Annual Catch Limits: Option 2 takes into account the catch of groundfish species in
other fisheries. This action does not propose a specific ACL for the skate fishery but
it is possible a specific ACL may be considered in the future.
Addition of Atlantic Wolffish to the Management unit
Sector administration provisions: these options will not have direct impacts on the
skate fishery, but the formation of additional sectors may and will be discussed
below.
Reporting requirements
Allocation of groundfish to the commercial and recreational groundfish fisheries
Changes to the DAS transfer and leasing programs
Periodic adjustment process
Possession of a limited access multispecies permit and a limited access scallop permit
by the same vessel
Recreational management measures
Atlantic halibut minimum size
Prohibition on retention of Atlantic wolffish

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

791

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Impacts on Other Fisheries

The two primary skate fisheries, a wing fishery and a lobster bait fishery, are interwoven with the
multispecies fishery. The regulations require that vessels must be fishing on a multispecies,
monkfish, or scallop DAS, or fish in an exempted fishery in order to possess skates. Winter skate
is the major component of the skate wing fishery, and little skate is the major component of the
whole/bait fishery. Despite prohibitions on possession since 2003, thorny, barndoor, and smooth
skates are still caught and discarded in the groundfish fishery. The vast majority of skate
landings are landed on Multispecies Category A DAS (Table 94). Changes to DAS regulations,
therefore, will directly impact skate catch. While there appears to be an increase in the landings of
skates on multispecies B DAS in 2007, it is not clear from the table if these were combined
multispecies/monkfish DAS. If they were, then the catch of skates on monkfish/multispecies DAS
did not increase from 2006 to 2007.
Table 300 - Total skate landings (lb live weight) by DAS program, 2000-2007.
MUL B
MNK
MNK/MUL
MUL A
Calender Year
2000
16,673,711
NA
1,037,993
2,817,080
2001
15,320,262
NA
764,437
3,037,382
2002
17,538,086
NA
665,661
3,845,897
2003
22,205,726
NA
601,063
4,123,343
2004
19,760,823
547,717
1,271,352
1,991,829
2005
17,715,403
967,069
1,911,588
2,754,418
2006
19,083,200
64,956
1,358,881
5,652,650
2007
20,349,972
1,715,633
1,087,857
2,571,196

SC
66,012
6,405
2,796
63
0
10,835
4,629
0

Source: NMFS, Fisheries Statistics Office
Little, clearnose, and rosette skates are not overfished or experiencing overfishing. Thorny and
smooth skates are predominantly distributed in the Gulf of Maine, whereas winter, little, and
barndoor skates are mainly distributed on Georges Bank and in Southern New England waters.
Clearnose and rosette skates have a more Mid-Atlantic distribution. Due to the different ranges
of these species, area-based management measures may differentially impact each species.
As noted, four options (including the No Action alternative) were considered to reduce fishing
mortality that results from vessels that choose not to join groundfish sectors. All four options
reduce the number of Category A DAS available to fish for groundfish, with the No Action
option and Option 2A reducing DAS by 18 percent (or more if revised to meet pollock mortality
objectives), the Proposed Action (Option 3A) by 50 percent, and Option 4 by 40 percent. In
addition, Options 2A and 3A either extended differential DAS counting areas or modified the
ways DAS are counted. Both of these options further reduce groundfish fishing opportunities.
Since at present much skate fishing is required to use either a scallop, monkfish, or scallop DAS,
all of these options would reduce the number of groundfish DAS available to use while fishing
for skates. This would be expected to reduce skate landings. A side effect of reduced
opportunities to fish for skates while using groundfish DAS might be that vessels choose to
participate more frequently in the skate exempted fisheries programs.
Relative to No Action, all of the proposed alternatives to control fishing mortality were
anticipated to have positive biological impacts on skate stocks. The Proposed Action reduces
DAS by 50 percent and adopts a 24-hour clock. Reductions in bottom fishing effort in the Gulf of
Maine, Georges Bank, and Southern New England areas will likely reduce skate landings and
discards from vessels fishing on a groundfish DAS. The proposed restrictions in the Gulf of
Maine will benefit thorny and smooth skate populations, while restrictions on Georges Bank and
in Southern New England will benefit winter, little, and barndoor skates. It is possible that with
reduced opportunities to target skates on Category A DAS, vessel operators increase
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

792

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Impacts on Other Fisheries

participations in skate exempted fisheries. Given the pending changes in the skate FMP, increased
targeting of skates on Category B DAS unlikely because of the reduced trip limits.
The proposed changes to the Category B (regular) DAS program are unlikely to have noticeable
impacts on the skate fishery and skates when compared to No Action. Amendment 3 to the Skate
FMP, recently approved by the Council and pending review and approval by NMFS, will prohibit
retention of skates while fishing on a Category B DAS regardless which options are adopted by
this amendment. Amendment 3 will prevent the targeting of skates and skates in excess of the trip
limits caught in this program will be discarded, but this will occur even if the changes proposed in
this action are not adopted. While Option 2 allows the use of 6 inch mesh codends in trawl when
fishing on GB in this program may result in the selection of smaller skates, there are no
selectivity studies available to determine the extent of those impacts. In addition, the required
gear, if fished correctly, will minimize skate catches.
Extending the Eastern U.S./Canada Haddock SAP and opening the CA II SAP in most years to
target GB haddock may increase skate catches when compared to No Action. While the SAPs
require the use of selective trawl gear, skates have been observed in tows using the haddock
separator trawl. Since adoption of a landing limit, however, the ratio of skates to target species
has decreased dramatically. Still, some skates will probably be caught in these SAPs that would
not have been caught if the No Action alternative was selected.
Authorizing a pilot program to target GOM haddock using sink gillnets is not likely to have
substantial impacts on skates. Vessels must use a Category A DAS, so this does not increase
fishing effort, particularly when the impacts of the 50 percent DAS reduction and 24-hour clock
are considered. It is possible that there may be minor differences in the sizes of skates caught
since the pilot program does allow the use of 6-inch gillnets.
Elimination of the SNE Winter Flounder SAP would likely result in positive biological impacts to
skate resources by reducing the potential for skate bycatch in these programs. These changes are
likely minor given the small size of this program and the expectation that removing the program
will only have slight impacts on fishing effort.
The formation of additional sectors may increase skate landings when compared to No Action.
Since sector vessels will not be required to use groundfish DAS to target groundfish they may
choose to use the DAS to increase the targeting of skates and/or monkfish. The performance of
the permits in the Fixed Gear Sector in FY 2007 does not support this possibility, as their total
skate landings remained nearly constant from FY 2006 to FY 2007. Mitigating these impacts,
however, is the expectation that sector vessels will be more efficient and will need fewer trips and
days fishing to harvest the available groundfish ACE. This should lead to reduced skate catches
while on groundfish trips.
Proposed changes to AMs may also affect the skate fishery. For FY 2010 and FY 2011, the AM
adjusts DAS counting in the year following a groundfish ACL overage. This would be expected
to reduce skate catches from the groundfish fishery by reducing overall effort. Beginning in FY
2012 a hard TAC system is the AM. If the AM is triggered for a stock, then groundfish fishing
with gear capable of catching the stock is generally prohibited in the stock area (with exceptions
for certain species). This will reduce fishing effort and should reduce catches of skates while
using a groundfish DAS. AMs for sectors would have similar effects. It could also push
groundfish vessels into skate exempted fisheries, increasing effort on skates, but these
opportunities are limited and not likely to outweigh the decline in effort.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

793

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Impacts on Other Fisheries

7.7.8 Other Fisheries
Groundfish permit holders frequently hold permits in two open access fisheries (spiny dogfish
and small mesh multispecies) and the limited access lobster fishery. The primary expected
impacts of this action for all three fisheries are due to reduced groundfish fishing activity due to
additional effort control restrictions or more efficient fishing within sectors.

7.7.8.1

Spiny Dogfish

The spiny dogfish fishery is jointly managed by the NEFMC and the MAFMC. Spiny dogfish are
widely caught by all groundfish fishing gears and most removals are a combination of incidental
catch and bycatch. Since dogfish gear is similar to groundfish gear fishing in the GOM/GB area is
often under a groundfish DAS, within state waters, or in an exempted fishery. The fishery is
managed with an annual quota and possession limits. When the quota is reached fishing for spiny
dogfish is prohibited. Spiny dogfish was last assessed in 2006 (SAW 43); based on new status
determination criteria that assessment determined the stock was not overfished and overfishing
was not occurring. The stock is being assessed again in early 2010 through the TRAC.
Reductions in groundfish fishing effort would be expected to reduce discards of spiny dogfish by
this fishery. Recent landing limits for this stock have been low and as a result this fishery does
not provide much opportunity for vessels to supplement lost groundfish revenue with dogfish
revenues. Even though this remains an open access fishery it is not likely that significant amounts
of effort will shift into this fishery as a result of groundfish restrictions because of the low trip
limits and the low landed value.

7.7.8.2

Small-mesh Multispecies

The small-mesh multispecies include silver hake (whiting), red hake, and offshore hake. They are
managed by the NEFMC. Management measures include time and area restrictions, gear
requirements, and possession limits. Sliver hake was last assessed in 2005 (SAW 42); both the
northern and southern stocks were found not overfished and not subject to overfishing. Red hake
and offshore hake have not been assessed in over ten years. While this remains an open access
fishery, the limited market for whiting tends to inhibit new entrants into the fishery. Even though
this remains an open access fishery it is not likely that significant amounts of effort will shift into
this fishery as a result of groundfish restrictions.
In late summer 2009, the Council initiated work on an amendment to the management plan. The
amendment will implement ACLs and AMs, and may consider adopting a limited-entry or other
catch-share type system for the fishery. This amendment may be delayed until updated
assessments are completed.

7.7.8.3

American Lobster

American lobster is managed by the ASMFC and NMFS under the provisions of the Atlantic
Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act (ACFCMA). The management approach is
complex and includes sub-areas with different trap limits and other regulations, as well as
differing measures within state waters. The three stocks were last assessed in 2006 (ASMFC
2006). The assessment found that abundance of the GOM stock overall was relatively high
compared to the 22-year time series and recent fishing mortality has been comparable to the past;
the GB stock appeared to be stable with current abundance and fishing mortality are similar to
their medians for the 22-year time series; and SNE stock abundance was relatively low compared
to the 20-year time series and fishing mortality was relatively high.
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

794

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Impacts on Other Fisheries

Many groundfish fishing vessels possess a lobster non-trap license (American lobster category 1
or 2, see Table 298). Reduced groundfish fishing activity due to more restrictive effort controls or
more efficient sector operations would be expected to reduce the number of trips landing lobsters
in this permit category. Over 320 groundfish vessels possess trap permits, however, and reduced
groundfish fishing activity could lead them to increase lobster fishing. This could add fishing
pressure on these stocks, particularly in Area 1 (GOM) where most of the vessels are permitted.
The action adopts several changes to the DAS leasing and transfer programs (see section 4.2.6).
The DAS transfer program conservation tax is permanently eliminated. The DAS transfer
program essentially allows the permanent stacking of groundfish DAS from multiple permits onto
one permit. The conservation tax reduces the number of DAS that can be transferred and is seen
as inhibiting the transfer of multispecies permits. Removing the tax is expected to increase the
number of permits that are combined into one groundfish permit. In the process of stacking
groundfish DAS, duplicate permits are pared to one permit. There are 1,478 lobster permits held
by vessels with limited access multispecies permits (some multispecies vessels may hold a lobster
permit for more than one area). At least some of the transfers that take place are likely to be
between two groundfish permits that hold a limited access lobster permit. In the process, one
lobster limited access permit will be eliminated. As a result, it is likely that the total number of
lobster permits will decline. It is difficult to predict the number of such exchanges or whether the
remaining permits will be more active in the lobster fishery. Lobster fishing activity could
increase several ways in spite of the reduced number of permits. If the eliminated permit did not
use its lobster permit but the remaining permit does then lobster catches might increase. Since the
groundfish vessel will have more DAS available it may retain more lobster while using those
DAS than occurred when the permits were on different vessels.
During the comment period on the draft amendment, the proposed expansion of the sector
program raised concerns that this could lead to an increase in fishing for lobsters by non-trap
vessels. Since these vessels will not have to use DAS to target groundfish, the concern raised is
that they will target lobsters while catching as little groundfish as possible, essentially using their
groundfish ACE to increase their opportunities to fish for lobster. Restrictions for lobster catches
by non-trap vessels were promulgated in 1999 (64 FR 68228) under the authority of ACFCMA.
Vessels are limited to 100 lobsters per day up to a maximum of 500 lobsters per trip. It is
noteworthy that these limits were established when there were over 160,000 DAS allocated to
groundfish permit holders. DAS use peaked at over 65,000 DAS in FY 2001. The adopted
restrictions were believed sufficient to control lobster catches by non-trap vessels in the face of
this large potential effort. With DAS allocations resulting from this amendment expected to be on
the order of 22,000 DAS, actual DAS use in recent years less than 35,000 DAS, and the
expectation that sector vessels may fish fewer days because of more efficient operations, there
would appear to be a large difference between the possible effort when the non-trap restrictions
were adopted and the effort available to the fishery through sectors. Sector vessels would either
have to increase recent fishing activity by a factor of almost five or substantially modify targeting
behavior in order to have lobster catches that might exceed the conditions in place when the nontrap limits were adopted.
The possibility of a change in targeting behavior can be evaluated by considering the break-even
analyses in section 7.5.1.3.1.2. Any change in targeting behavior to target lobsters while
minimizing groundfish catches is only likely if vessel operators can expect such activity to be
profitable. This would include covering not only variable trip costs but the fixed costs associated
with operating a fishing business. Table 263 shows the average gross revenues per day for fulltime groundfish fishing vessels of different sizes and using different gear, and shows the average
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

795

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Impacts on Other Fisheries

contribution margin realized from those revenues. With a maximum daily limit of 100 lobsters,
and assuming an average weight of three pounds per lobster, the daily catches of lobster would be
300 lbs. (Trawl landings averaged 337 lbs. per trip, for trips of any length, in 2008). In 2008,
trawl vessels received on average $4 to $5 per pound for lobsters; maximum lobster revenues per
day under these assumptions would be in the range of $1,200 to $1,500. This ranges from 22
percent to 53 percent of the average gross revenue per day for trawl vessels of different sizes, and
between 49 percent and 76 percent of average gross revenues for gillnet vessels of different sizes.
Clearly, for trawl vessels, targeting lobster will not, by itself, replace the average gross revenues
of the recent past, and other species will not to be harvested on the same trips. Those other
species are likely to be groundfish, reducing the possibility that sector vessels can leverage
groundfish ACE to target lobsters. The situation is not as clear with respect to smaller gillnet
vessels that could replace 76 percent of their average gross revenues if they maximize lobster
catches on a daily basis. They would have to do so while minimizing catches of regulated
groundfish in the same gear, since any catches of legal groundfish must be landed and a discard
estimate is applied to kept catch. In 2008, sink gillnet vessels averaged 91 lbs. of lobster per trip
of any length.
The combination of reduced effort expected under sector operations and non-trap lobster landing
limits make it unlikely that the implementation of additional sectors will increase beyond the
conditions in place when the non-trap limits were adopted. If fishing behavior by groundfish
vessels changes dramatically to facilitate targeting lobsters, it is possible that some vessel/gear
combinations (such as small gillnet vessels) might increase their lobster catches from current
levels.

7.7.8.4

Atlantic Sea Scallops

The Atlantic Sea Scallop fishery is managed by the NEFMC. Management measures include
restrictions on DAS, trip limits, and gear and crew requirements. A key feature of the FMP is a
rotational management system that opens and closes areas to scallop fishing on a planned
schedule to allow scallops to grow before harvesting and increase yield. This management
program includes access to parts of the groundfish closed areas, including CAI and CAII.
This action proposes to allow a vessel to possess a limited access multispecies permit and a
limited access scallop permit at the same time. At present this is only allowed for a small number
of scallop dredge vessels that qualified for multispecies limited access combination permit. The
impacts of this proposal on the scallop and multispecies fisheries are described in section
7.2.1.2.9and 7.5.1.2.9.
Two changes are proposed to SAPs which may also affect the scallop fishery. The area and
season for the CAI Hook Gear Haddock SAP may be expanded by this action. The expanded area
includes the scallop access area and the proposed season (May through January) coincides with
scallop activity when the scallop fishery has access to the area (June 15 through February unless
closed due to bycatch concerns). This creates a potential for gear conflicts between the mobile
gear scallop dredge fishermen and fixed gear fishermen using longlines in those years when the
scallop fleet has access to the area. A comparison of haddock catch per tow (weight) on the spring
and fall trawl surveys and the summer dredge survey with the sea scallop catch per tow in the
summer dredge fishery from 1996 through 2007 shows that there are some areas of overlap,
particularly on the northeastern side of CAI (see Figure 157). The highest haddock distributions
seem to be outside the scallop access area in depths of more than 50 fathoms, so there will be
some ability for fishermen to avoid conflicts by fishing in different areas.
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

796

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Impacts on Other Fisheries

This action also modifies the CAII Yellowtail Flounder SAP so that GB haddock can be targeted
within CAII even in years when the SAP is not open to allow the targeting of yellowtail flounder.
Similar to the case with the CAI Haddock SAP, comparing survey distribution of haddock and
sea scallops shows that there are areas of overlap within CAII (Figure 158). During periods when
CAII is open to both sea scallop and groundfish fishermen there is a possibility of conflicts
between user groups. These types of conflicts between mobile gear users tend to be less
troublesome because the fishermen can readily cooperate on the fishing grounds to reduce
interactions. The gear required when the SAP is only open for haddock fishing is not likely to
catch scallops if fished correctly.

Figure 157 – Survey weight per tow of haddock and sea scallops in CAI, 1996 – 2007.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

797

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Impacts on Other Fisheries
Figure 158 – Survey weight per tow of haddock and sea scallops in CAII, 1996 - 2007

7.7.8.5

Atlantic Herring

The Atlantic Sea herring fishery is managed by the NEFMC. The fishery uses quotas by area and
season. Prosecuted primarily by mid water trawls (single and paired) and purse seines,
management measures include restrictions on the incidental catch of haddock and other regulated
groundfish. Mid-water trawls are allowed access to the groundfish closed areas as an exempted
fishery but their use of the areas is subject to numerous regulatory restrictions.
The proposed expansion of the CAI Hook Gear Haddock SAP in time and season may increase
gear conflicts between mobile gear fishermen and fixed gear hook fishermen. Herring trawl
vessels are known to fish in the north end of CAI. The location of observed mid-water trawl tows
overlaps the distribution of haddock as noted in surveys (Figure 159). This suggests that the midwater trawl vessels and longline vessels may attempt to fish in the same locations. There is
considerable antipathy between the two user groups. Indeed, a primary hook gear user group – the
Cape Cod Commercial Hook Fishermen’s Association - is in the forefront of efforts to ban midwater trawl access to the groundfish closed areas. With this history between the user groups any
gear conflicts that result from expanding the CAI Hook Gear Haddock SAP may prove
contentious and intractable.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

798

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Cumulative Effects Analysis
Figure 159 – Comparison of observed mid-water trawl tows catching herring (all observed tows are
from 2005-2008, August – October) and haddock survey distribution in CAI.

7.8

Cumulative Effects Analysis

7.8.1 Introduction
A cumulative effects assessment (CEA) is a required part of an EIS according to the Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ) (40 CFR part 1508.7). The purpose of the CEA is to integrate into
the impact analyses, the combined effects of many actions over time that would be missed if each
action were evaluated separately. CEQ guidelines recognize that it is not practical to analyze the
cumulative effects of an action from every conceivable perspective but rather, the intent is to
focus on those effects that are truly meaningful. This section serves to examine the potential
direct and indirect effects of the alternatives in Amendment 16 together with past, present, and
reasonably foreseeable future actions that affect the groundfish environment. It should also be
noted that the predictions of potential synergistic effects from multiple actions, past, present
and/or future will generally be qualitative in nature.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

799

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Cumulative Effects Analysis

Valued Ecosystem Components (VEC)
As noted in section 6.0 (Description of the Affected Environment), the VECs that exist within the
groundfish fishery are identified and the basis for their selection is established. Those VECs were
identified as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Regulated groundfish stocks (target and non-target);
Non-groundfish species (incidental catch and bycatch);
Endangered and other protected species;
Habitat, including non-fishing effects; and
Human Communities (includes economic and social effects on the fishery and fishing
communities).

Temporal Scope of the VECs
While the effects of historical fisheries are considered, the temporal scope of past and present
actions for regulated groundfish stocks, non-groundfish species, habitat and the human
environment is primarily focused on actions that have taken place since implementation of the
initial NE Multispecies FMP in 1977. An assessment using this timeframe demonstrates the
changes to resources and the human environment that have resulted through management under
the Council process and through U.S. prosecution of the fishery, rather than foreign fleets. For
endangered and other protected species, the context is largely focused on the 1980s and 1990s,
when NMFS began generating stock assessments for marine mammals and turtles that inhabit
waters of the U.S. EEZ. In terms of future actions, this analysis examines the period between
implementation of this amendment (May 1, 2010) and the anticipated rebuilding of the fishery in
2014. This date was chosen because after the fishery is rebuilt, changes to the management of
groundfish that are not possible to predict at this time are likely.
Geographic Scope of the VECs
The geographic scope of the analysis of impacts to regulated groundfish stocks, non-groundfish
species and habitat for this action is the total range of these VECs in the Western Atlantic Ocean,
as described in the Affected Environment section of the document (section 6.0). However, the
analyses of impacts presented in this amendment focuses primarily on actions related to the
harvest of the managed resources. The result is a more limited geographic area used to define the
core geographic scope within which the majority of harvest effort for the managed resources
occurs. For endangered and protected species, the geographic range is the total range of each
species (section 6.0).
Because the potential exists for far-reaching sociological or economic impacts on U.S. citizens
who may not be directly involved in fishing for the managed resources, the overall geographic
scope for human communities is defined as all U.S. human communities. Limitations on the
availability of information needed to measure sociological and economic impacts at such a broad
level necessitate the delineation of core boundaries for the human communities. Therefore, the
geographic range for the human environment is defined as those primary and secondary ports
bordering the range of the groundfish fishery (section 6.0) from the U.S.-Canada border to, and
including North Carolina.
Analysis of Total Cumulative Effects
A cumulative effects assessment ideally makes effect determinations based on the culmination of
the following: (1) impacts from past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions; PLUS (2)
the baseline condition for resources and human communities (note – the baseline condition
consists of the present condition of the VECs plus the combined effects of past, present and

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

800

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Cumulative Effects Analysis

reasonably foreseeable future actions); PLUS (3) impacts from the Proposed Action and
alternatives.
A description of past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions is presented immediately
below in Table 301 and more thoroughly in Appendix I. The baseline conditions of the resources
and human community are subsequently summarized although it is important to note that beyond
the stocks managed under this FMP and protected species, quantitative metrics for the baseline
conditions are not available. Finally, a brief summary of the impacts from the alternatives
contained in this amendment is included. The culmination of all these factors is considered when
making the cumulative effects assessment.

7.8.2 Past, Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions
Table 301 summarizes the combined effects of other past, present and reasonably foreseeable
future actions that affect the VECs, i.e., actions other than those alternatives under development
in this document (a summary of the primary past, present and reasonably foreseeable future
actions effecting this amendment can be found in Appendix I).
Note that most of the actions effecting this amendment and considered in Table 301 come from
fishery-related activities (e.g., Federal fishery management actions). As expected, these activities
have fairly straight-forward effects on environmental conditions, and were, are, or will be taken,
in large part, to improve those conditions. The reason for this is the statutory basis for Federal
fisheries management - the re-authorized Magnuson-Stevens Act. That legislation was enacted to
promote long-term positive impacts on the environment in the context of fisheries activities.
More specifically, the act stipulates that management comply with a set of National Standards
that collectively serve to optimize the conditions of the human environment. Under this
regulatory regime, the cumulative impacts of past, present, and future Federal fishery
management actions on the VECs should be expected to result in positive long-term outcomes.
Nevertheless, these actions are often associated with offsetting impacts. For example,
constraining fishing effort frequently results in negative short-term socio-economic impacts for
fishery participants. However, these impacts are usually necessary to bring about long-term
sustainability of a given resource and as such, should, in the long-term, promote positive effects
on human communities, especially those that are economically dependent upon the managed
resource.
Non-fishing activities were also considered when determining the combined effects from past,
present and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Activities that have meaningful effects on the
VECs include the introduction of chemical pollutants, sewage, changes in water temperature,
salinity, dissolved oxygen, and suspended sediment into the marine environment. These activities
pose a risk to the all of the identified VECs in the long term. Human induced non-fishing
activities that affect the VECs under consideration in this document are those that tend to be
concentrated in near shore areas. Examples of these activities include, but are not limited to
agriculture, port maintenance, beach nourishment, coastal development, marine transportation,
marine mining, dredging and the disposal of dredged material. Wherever these activities cooccur, they are likely to work additively or synergistically to decrease habitat quality and, as such,
may indirectly constrain the sustainability of the managed resources, non-target species, and
protected resources. Decreased habitat suitability would tend to reduce the tolerance of these
VECs to the impacts of fishing effort. Mitigation of this outcome through regulations that would
reduce fishing effort could then negatively impact human communities.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

801

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Cumulative Effects Analysis
Table 301 - Summary effects of past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions on the VECs
identified for Amendment 16 (based on actions listed in Appendix I).
Present Actions

Reasonably Foreseeable
Future Actions

Combined Effects of Past,
Present, Future Actions

Positive
Future actions are
anticipated to continue
rebuilding and strive to
maintain sustainable
stocks

Short-term Negative
Several stocks are currently
overfished, have overfishing
occurring, or both
Positive
Stocks are being managed to
attain rebuilt status

VEC

Past Actions

Regulated
Groundfish Stocks

Mixed
Combined effects of
past actions have
decreased effort and
improved habitat
protection
however, some
stocks remain
overfished

Positive
Current regulations continue
to manage for sustainable
stocks

Non-groundfish
Species

Positive
Combined effects of
past actions have
decreased effort and
improved habitat
protection

Positive
Current regulations continue
to manage for sustainable
stocks, thus controlling effort
on direct and discard/bycatch
species

Endangered and
Other Protected
Species

Positive
Combined effects of
past fishery actions
have reduced effort
and thus interactions
with protected
resources

Positive
Current regulations continue
to control effort, thus
reducing opportunities for
interactions

Habitat

Mixed
Combined effects of
effort reductions and
better control of nonfishing activities have
been positive but
fishing activities and
non-fishing activities
continue to reduce
habitat quality

Mixed
Effort reductions and better
control of non-fishing
activities have been positive
but fishing activities and
non-fishing activities
continue to reduce habitat
quality

Mixed
Future regulations will
likely control effort and
thus habitat impacts but
as stocks improve,
effort will likely
increase along with
additional non-fishing
activities

Mixed
Continued fisheries
management will likely
control effort and thus fishery
related habitat impacts but
fishery and non-fishery
related activities will continue
to reduce habitat quality

Human
Communities

Mixed
Fishery resources
have supported
profitable industries
and communities but
increasing effort
controls have
curtailed fishing
opportunities

Mixed
Fishery resources continue to
support communities but
increasing effort controls
combined with non-fishing
impacts such as rising fuel
costs have had a negative
economic impact

Short-term Negative
As effort controls are
maintained or
strengthened, economic
impacts will be negative
Long-term Positive
As stocks improve,
effort will likely
increase which would
have a positive impact

Short-term Negative
Lower revenues would likely
continue until stocks are fully
rebuilt
Long-term Positive
Sustainable resources should
support viable communities
and economies

Positive
Future actions are
anticipated to continue
rebuilding and thus
limit the take of
discards/bycatch
Mixed
Future regulations will
likely control effort and
thus protected species
interactions, but as
stocks improve, effort
will likely increase,
possibly increasing
interactions

Positive
Continued management of
directed stocks will also
control incidental
catch/bycatch

Positive
Continued effort controls
along with past regulations
will likely help stabilize
protected species interactions

Impact Definitions:
-Regulated Groundfish Stocks, Non-groundfish species, Endangered and Other Protected Species: positive=actions that increase
stock size and negative=actions that decrease stock size
-Habitat: positive=actions that improve or reduce disturbance of habitat and negative=actions that degrade or increase disturbance
of habitat
-Human Communities: positive=actions that increase revenue and well being of fishermen and/or associated businesses
negative=actions that decrease revenue and well being of fishermen and/or associated businesses

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

802

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Cumulative Effects Analysis

7.8.3 Baseline Conditions for Resources and Human Communities
For the purposes of a cumulative effects assessment, the baseline conditions for resources and
human communities is considered the present condition of the VECs plus the combined effects of
the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. The following table (Table 302)
summarizes the added effects of the condition of the VECs (i.e., status/trends from Section 5.0)
and the sum effect of the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions (from Table 301
above). The resulting CEA baseline for each VEC is exhibited in the last column (shaded). In
general, straight-forward quantitative metrics of the baseline conditions are only available for the
managed resources, non-target species, and protected resources. The conditions of the habitat and
human communities VECS are complex and varied. As such, the reader should refer to the
characterizations given in Sections 5.1 and 5.2, respectively. As mentioned above, this
cumulative effects baseline is then used to assess cumulative effects of the proposed management
actions below in Table 302.
Impact Definitions for Table 302 below:
Regulated Groundfish
Stocks, Non-groundfish
species, Endangered and
Other Protected Species

Positive = actions that increase stock size
Negative = actions that decrease stock size
Positive = actions that improve or reduce disturbance of habitat

Habitat

Human Communities
All VECs

Negative = actions that degrade or increase disturbance of habitat
Positive = actions that increase revenue and well being of
fishermen and/or associated businesses
Negative = actions that decrease revenue and well being of
fishermen and/or associated businesses
Mixed=both positive and negative

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

803

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Cumulative Effects Analysis
Table 302 - Cumulative effects assessment baseline conditions of the VECs

VEC

Regulated
Groundfish
Stocks

Status/Trends

Georges
Bank Cod
Gulf of
Maine Cod
Georges
Bank
Haddock
Gulf of
Maine
Haddock
Georges
Bank
Yellowtail
SNE/MidAtlantic
Yellowtail
Cape CodGulf of
Maine
Yellowtail
American
Plaice
Witch
Flounder
Georges
Bank Winter
Flounder
Gulf of
Maine
Winter
Flounder
SNE/MidAtlantic
Winter
Flounder
Acadian
Redfish
White Hake
Pollock
Northern
Windowpane
Southern
Windowpane
Ocean Pout
Atlantic
Halibut

Combined Effects of
Past, Present
Reasonably Foreseeable
Future Actions (Table
301)

Combined CEA
Baseline Conditions

Negative – short term
Several stocks are
currently overfished,
have overfishing
occurring, or both;
Positive – long term
Stocks are being
managed to attain rebuilt
status

Negative – short term
Overharvesting in the
past contributed to
several stocks being
overfished or where
overfishing is occurring;
Positive – long term
Regulatory actions taken
over time have reduced
fishing effort and with
the addition of
Amendment 16, stocks
are expected to rebuild in
the future

Overfished and overfishing is
occurring.
Not overfished but overfishing is
occurring.
Not overfished and overfishing is
not occurring.
Not overfished and overfishing is
not occurring.
Overfished and overfishing is
occurring.
Overfished and overfishing is
occurring.
Overfished and overfishing is
occurring.
Not overfished and overfishing is
not occurring.
Overfished and overfishing is
occurring.
Overfished and overfishing is
occurring.
Overfished and overfishing is
occurring.
Overfished and overfishing is
occurring.
Not overfished and overfishing is
not occurring.
Overfished and overfishing is
occurring.
Not overfished but overfishing is
occurring.
Overfished and overfishing is
occurring.
Not overfished but overfishing is
occurring.
Overfished but overfishing is not
occurring.
Overfished but overfishing is not
occurring.

Table 302 Continued
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

804

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Cumulative Effects Analysis

Status/Trends

VEC

Monkfish

Not overfished and overfishing is
not occurring.

Dogfish

Not overfished and overfishing is
not occurring.

Non-groundfish
Species (principle
species listed in
section 5.1.9)
Skates

Habitat

Sea Turtles

Large
Cetaceans
Protected
Resources
Small
Cetaceans

Pinnipeds

Human Communities

Winter, thorny and smooth skates
are overfished and thorny is also
subject to overfishing. Barndoor
skate is not overfished and is
rebuilding toward biomass target.
Little skate is not overfished,
although it is close to the
overfished biomass threshold.
Clearnose and rosette skates are
not overfished and overfishing is
not occurring.
Fishing impacts are complex and
variable and typically adverse
(see section 5.1.6); Non-fishing
activities had historically negative
but site-specific effects on habitat
quality.
Leatherback, Kemp’s ridley and
green sea turtles are classified as
endangered under the ESA and
loggerhead sea turtles are
classified as threatened.
Of the baleen whales (right,
humpback, fin, blue, sei and
minke whales) and sperm whales,
all are protected under the MSA
and with the exception of minke
whales, all are listed as
endangered under the ESA.
Pilot whales, dolphins and harbor
porpoise are all protected under
the MSA. The most recent stock
assessment for harbor porpoise
shows that takes are increasing
and nearing PBR.
ESA classification: Endangered,
number of nesting females below
sustainable level; taken by Loligo
trawl
Complex and variable (see
Section 5.2). Although there are
exceptions, generally groundfish
landings have decreased for most
New England states since 2001.
Declines in groundfish revenues
since 2001 have also occurred in
all states except CT.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

805

Combined Effects of
Past, Present
Reasonably Foreseeable
Future Actions (Table
301)

Combined CEA
Baseline Conditions

Positive – Continued
management of directed
stocks will also control
incidental catch/bycatch.

Positive – Although
prior groundfish
management measures
likely contributed to
redirecting effort onto
non-groundfish species,
as groundfish rebuild
this pressure should
lessen and all of these
species are also managed
through their own FMP.

Mixed – Future
regulations will likely
control effort and thus
habitat impacts but as
stocks improve, effort
will likely increase along
with additional nonfishing activities.

Mixed - reduced habitat
disturbance by fishing
gear but impacts from
non-fishing actions, such
as global warming, could
increase and have a
negative impact.

Positive – reduced gear
encounters through effort
reductions and
management actions
taken under the ESA and
MMPA have had a
positive impact

Positive – reduced gear
encounters through effort
reductions and additional
management actions
taken under the ESA and
MMPA.

Negative – Although
future sustainable
resources should support
viable communities and
economies, continued
effort reductions over the
past several years have
had negative impacts on
communities

Negative – short term
lower revenues would
continue until stocks are
sustainable
Positive – long term
sustainable resources
should support viable
communities and
economies

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Cumulative Effects Analysis

7.8.4 Summary Effects of Amendment 16 Actions
The focus of the alternatives contained in Amendment 16 can be divided into the following broad
categories: (1) Updates to status determination criteria and formal rebuilding programs; (2)
fishery program administration such as annual catch limits, adding Atlantic wolffish to the
multispecies management unit, sector administration provisions, allocation of resources for
sectors, sector monitoring and enforcement, transfer of ACE, sector participation in SAPs, the
interaction of sectors with common pool vessels, movement between sectors, reporting
requirements, commercial and recreational allocations, changes to the DAS leasing and transfer
programs, SAPs, measures that can be periodically adjusted, and permitting changes for
multispecies and scallop permit holders; and (3) measures to meet mortality objectives including
effort control alternatives for commercial and recreational fisheries, Atlantic halibut minimum
size, prohibition on the retention of Atlantic wolffish, implementation of additional sectors, and
accountability measures.
Proposed actions taken under number one above would revise the status of groundfish stocks and
modify rebuilding targets which in turn impact the alternatives in number three regarding the
level of effort control measures needed to meet the mortality objectives of the FMP. Typically,
effort control measures have the greatest overall impact on the fishery. Additional reductions
would continue stocks on their rebuilding strategy and have a positive impact on biological
resources (groundfish and non-groundfish stocks, protected species, and habitat). However, as
with other past effort reductions, the human community would likely incur substantial short-term
negative impacts as a result of lost fishing revenue. In the long-term, impacts on the directed
fishery and human communities would likely be positive as stocks reach sustainable levels and
effort controls are relaxed, while fewer controls may lead to an increased bycatch of nongroundfish species and possibly greater impacts to habitat and protected species.
Regarding impacts from the measures mentioned in number two, many of these alternatives focus
on sector administration. Because under the proposed action sectors would be allocated a hard
TAC for most regulated groundfish stocks, impacts on the directed fishery would be controlled.
However, impacts to the other four VECs will vary based on which alternatives are selected.
Depending on the sectors that are formed, the number of participants in each sector and the area
where the sector is conducted, impacts could vary. For example, if sectors transfer their ACE, a
trawl sector could transfer TAC to a gillnet sector. If the gillnet sector’s effort then increases in
an area where protected species are present, it could increase protected species interactions.
Likewise the opposite could occur, thereby decreasing protected species interactions. Regarding
impacts to human communities, the overall impact of sector management should be positive
because sectors are created to provide maximum profits to their participants while also allowing
members to have some control over their own management measures. However, based on sector
administrative procedures (e.g., period of time chosen for landings history) there will likely be
individuals that fair better than others. Overall, while it is difficult to predict the various
outcomes that could occur under sector administration, it is important to note that individual
sectors will be required to submit an annua1 operations plan that contains an environmental
analysis of the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of that sector's operations.
Other measures mentioned under number two (permitting requirements, commercial and
recreational allocations, reporting requirements, implementing ACLs and SAP modifications,
etc.) would have impacts less substantial than effort reductions. Likewise, allocating shares of
groundfish to the commercial and recreational fisheries would primarily be for the purpose of
helping design better management measures to reduce effort on the party responsible should
mortality targets be exceeded. Permitting requirements would entail allowing a vessel that
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

806

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Cumulative Effects Analysis

possesses a multispecies limited access permit to also possess a limited access scallop permit and
modifications to the conservation tax regulations for DAS leases and transfers. With the
exception of one measure that would add a conservation tax for leased DAS, the remainder of
these alternatives would provide increased flexibility to the industry and could encourage
consolidation which decreases administrative burden for both NMFS and the industry. Finally,
changes to the SAPs would provide greater opportunities to harvest healthy stocks while closing
access to a depleted winter flounder stock. By potentially shifting effort away from stocks in
need of greater protection, these changes could have a positive biological impact on groundfish
species and human communities. Impacts to protected species, habitat, and non-groundfish
species would likely be minor.

7.8.5 Cumulative Effects Summary
The regulatory atmosphere within which Federal fishery management operates requires that
management actions be taken in a manner that will optimize the conditions of resources, habitat,
and human communities. Consistent with NEPA, the SFA requires that management actions be
taken only after consideration of impacts to the biological, physical, economic, and social
dimensions of the human environment. Given this regulatory environment, and because fishery
management actions must strive to create and maintain sustainable resources, impacts on all
VECs (except short-term impacts to human communities) from past, present and reasonably
foreseeable future actions, when combined with baseline conditions, have generally been positive
and are expected to continue in that manner for the foreseeable future. This is not to say that
some aspects of the various VECs are not experiencing negative impacts, but rather that when
taken as a whole and compared to the level of unsustainable effort that existed prior to and just
after the fishery came under management control, the overall long-term trend is positive.

Table 303 below is provided as a summary of likely cumulative effects found in the various
groups of management alternatives contained in Amendment 16. Impacts are listed as no
impact/neutral, positive, negative, or mixed. Impacts listed as no impact/neutral include those
alternatives that have no impact or have a neutral impact (neither positive nor negative). Impacts
listed as mixed contain both positive and negative impacts. The resultant cumulative effect is the
CEA baseline exhibited in the first shaded column that, as described above in Table 302,
represents the sum of the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future (identified hereafter as
"other") actions and conditions of each VEC. When an alternative has a positive effect on a
VEC, for example, reduced fishing mortality on a managed species, it has a positive cumulative
effect on the stock size of the species when combined with the "other" actions that were also
designed to increase stock size. In contrast, when an alternative has a negative effect on a VEC,
such as increased mortality, the cumulative effect on the VEC would be negative and tend to
reduce the positive effects of the "other" actions. The resultant positive and negative cumulative
effects are described below for each VEC and are exhibited in Table 302 in the shaded column.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

807

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Cumulative Effects Analysis

Table 303 - Cumulative effects expected on the VECs.
VECs
Management Measure

Managed Resources

Non-target
Species

Protected
Resources

Habitat
Including
EFH

Human
Communities

REVISED STATUS
DETERMINATION CRITERIA

Positive – revised criteria
would guide management
actions and rebuilding
using the best available
science. This, combined
with past management
efforts, should contribute
with stock rebuilding and
provide positive
cumulative impacts

No
Impact/Neutral –
provided
rebuilding
continues,
additional
impacts to nontarget species are
not anticipated

No
Impact/Neutral
– provided
rebuilding
continues,
additional
impacts to
protected
species are not
anticipated

No
Impact/Neutral
– provided
rebuilding
continues,
additional
impacts to
habitat are not
anticipated

Positive –
Overall
revenues will
increase as
stocks rebuild
however,
revenues under
the revised
criteria would
be less than no
action once
rebuilding is
complete

REVISED MORTALITY
TARGETS FOR FORMAL
REBUILDING PROGRAM

Positive – revised
mortality targets would
modify fishing mortality
rates and adopt rebuilding
programs for stocks
recently declared
overfished. This,
combined with past
management efforts,
should contribute with
stock rebuilding and
provide positive
cumulative impacts

No
Impact/Neutral –
provided
rebuilding
continues,
additional
impacts to nontarget species are
not anticipated

No
Impact/Neutral
– provided
rebuilding
continues,
additional
impacts to
protected
species are not
anticipated

No
Impact/Neutral
– provided
rebuilding
continues,
additional
impacts to
habitat are not
anticipated

Positive – over
the long-term
revised targets
should lead to
increased
yields and thus
greater profits

UPDATES TO
STATUS
DETERMINATION
CRITERIA AND
FORMAL
REBUILDING
PROGRAMS

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

808

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Cumulative Effects Analysis

VECs
Management Measure

Managed Resources

Non-target
Species

Protected
Resources

Habitat
Including
EFH

Human
Communities

ANNUAL CATCH LIMITS
(ACL)

Positive – primarily
administrative although if
designed properly, in the
long-term should reduce
the risk of exceeding
fishing mortality targets

No
Impact/Neutral –
provided
rebuilding
continues,
additional
impacts to nontarget species are
not anticipated

No
Impact/Neutral
– provided
rebuilding
continues,
additional
impacts to
protected
species are not
anticipated

No
Impact/Neutral
– provided
rebuilding
continues,
additional
impacts to
habitat are not
anticipated

Negative –
past
effort/revenue
reductions
would be in
addition to
yield that may
be lost due to
uncertainties in
setting OFL,
ABC and
ACL.
However, over
time these
uncertainties
may be
reduced

ADDITION OF ATLANTIC
WOLFFISH TO THE
MANAGEMENT UNIT
INCLUDING DESIGNATION
OF EFH

Positive – past regulatory
actions have reduced
overall fishing effort
(presumably on wolffish
too) and although this
alternative would be
administrative, it would
allow measures to be
implemented that would
protect this stock

No Impact – the
addition to the
management unit
and potential
EFH designation
and regulation of
wolffish would
not likely impact
non-groundfish
stocks

Positive – if
wolffish are
listed as a
protected
species, it
would provide
an additional
mechanism to
protect the
species

Positive –
adding
wolffish to the
management
unit is
primarily
administrative
but would lead
to the
designation of
wolffish EFH

No Impact –
adding
wolffish
would not
impact human
communities
but could lead
to subsequent
measures that
reduce revenue

FISHERY
PROGRAM
ADMINISTRATION

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

809

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Cumulative Effects Analysis

VECs
Management Measure

FISHERY
PROGRAM
ADMINISTRATION
CONTINUED

Managed Resources

SECTOR ADMINISTRATIVE
PROVISIONS ( DEFINITION/
FORMATION OF A SECTOR
AND OPERATIONS PLAN)

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

No Impact – primarily
administrative in nature
designed to improve the
effectiveness of sectors

810

Non-target
Species

No Impact –
primarily
administrative
in nature
designed to
improve the
effectiveness
of sectors

Protected
Resources

No Impact –
primarily
administrative
in nature
designed to
improve the
effectiveness
of sectors

Habitat
Including
EFH

Human
Communities

No Impact –
primarily
administrative
in nature
designed to
improve the
effectiveness
of sectors

Unknown/
Negative –
operating costs
for sectors are
estimated to
range between
60K-150K. It is
difficult to
estimate the
costs associated
with the
proposed
changes but the
added cost would
contribute to past
revenue declines

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Cumulative Effects Analysis

VECs
Management Measure

ALLOCATION OF
RESOURCES [FOR SECTORS]

Non-target
Species

Protected
Resources

Positive – in combination
with past and present
regulations, would make it
more likely that fishing
mortality targets will not
be exceeded in successive
fishing years

No Impact –
provided
rebuilding
continues,
additional
impacts to
non-target
species are not
anticipated

No Impact –
provided
rebuilding
continues,
additional
impacts to
protected
species are not
anticipated

No Impact –
provided
rebuilding
continues,
additional
impacts to
habitat are not
anticipated

Low Positive – primarily
administrative but may
assist in controlling
fishing mortality

Low Positive –
if fishing
mortality is
controlled, it
may reduce
discards of
non-target
species

No Impact –
provided
rebuilding
continues,
additional
impacts to
protected
species are not
anticipated

No Impact –
provided
rebuilding
continues,
additional
impacts to
habitat are not
anticipated

FISHERY
PROGRAM
ADMINISTRATION
CONTINUED

[SECTOR ALLOCATIONS IN
THE] U.S./CANADA AREA

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

Habitat
Including
EFH

Managed Resources

811

Human
Communities
Low Negative –
all methods to
allocate
resources have
varying impacts
on participants.
Those that do not
fair as well
would likely
have revenue
losses.
Low Negative –
all methods to
allocate
resources have
varying impacts
on participants.
Those that do not
fair as well
would likely
have revenue
losses

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Cumulative Effects Analysis

VECs
Non-target
Species

Protected
Resources

Habitat
Including
EFH

Human
Communities

[SECTOR] MONITORING
AND ENFORCEMENT

Positive – improved
monitoring and
enforcement may reduce
discards of legal fish and
confidence in landed
amounts. This, combined
with past effort
reductions, may lead to
better management in the
future

No Impact –
monitoring
and
enforcement
measures are
not expected to
impact nongroundfish
stocks and thus
should have no
cumulative
effect

Low Positive –
enhanced
monitoring
through
observers
could provide
improved
information
regarding
interactions
between
fisheries and
protected
species. This
would have a
positive
cumulative
impact

No Impact –
provided
rebuilding
continues,
additional
impacts to
habitat are not
anticipated

Negative –
participants
would have
increased
monitoring and
enforcement
costs

TRANSFER OF ANNUAL
CATCH ENTITLEMENTS
(ACE)

Negative – allowing the
transfer of ACE should
not increase fishing
mortality however, if
ACE is allowed to be
carried into the next
fishing year, it could
increase the risk that
overfishing will occur.
Continued overfishing
when combined with past
failures to rebuild could
prolong achieving
sustainable stocks

No Impact –
monitoring
and
enforcement
measures are
not expected to
impact nongroundfish
stocks and thus
should have no
cumulative
effect

No Impact –
provided
rebuilding
continues,
additional
impacts to
habitat are not
anticipated

Mixed – lack of
ACE transfers
would decrease
flexibility/
revenues
resulting in a
negative
cumulative
impact whereas
the transfer of
ACE would
provide positive
cumulative
impacts.

Management Measure

Managed Resources

FISHERY
PROGRAM
ADMINISTRATION
CONTINUED

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

812

No Impact –
provided
rebuilding
continues,
additional
impacts to
protected
species are not
anticipated

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Cumulative Effects Analysis

VECs
Management Measure

Managed Resources

SECTOR PARTICIPATION IN
SPECIAL MANAGEMENT
PROGRAMS

No Impact/Neutral – since
the participation in SAPs
would not provide sectors
additional catch or effort,
they are not expected to
have any impact beyond
what is already occurring.

INTERACTION OF SECTOR
WITH COMMON POOL
VESSELS/UNIVERSAL
EXEMPTIONS

Low Negative – these
alternatives would provide
sector’s relief from certain
effort control measures
The elimination of certain
requirements would not
increase overall fishing
effort but relief from the
rolling closures could
allow fishing in areas that
disrupts spawning cod
stocks

FISHERY
PROGRAM
ADMINISTRATION
CONTINUED

MOVEMENT BETWEEN
SECTORS

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

No Impact –
administrative in nature

813

Non-target
Species
No Impact –
the
participation in
SAPs is not
expected to
result in a
change in
effort on nongroundfish
species and
thus no
cumulative
effect
No Impact –
the interaction
of sectors with
the common
pool vessels is
not expected to
result in a
change in
effort on nongroundfish
species and
thus no
cumulative
effect
No Impact –
administrative
in nature

Habitat
Including
EFH

Human
Communities

No Impact –
provided
rebuilding
continues,
additional
impacts to
protected
species are not
anticipated

No Impact –
provided
rebuilding
continues,
additional
impacts to
habitat are not
anticipated

Positive –
participation in
SAPs provides
access to yearround closures
and the
opportunity to
increase
revenues,
resulting in
positive
cumulative
impacts

No Impact –
provided
rebuilding
continues,
additional
impacts to
protected
species are not
anticipated

No Impact –
provided
rebuilding
continues,
additional
impacts to
habitat are not
anticipated

Low Positive –
these alternatives
may result in a
more reliable
supply of fish to
markets, and also
facilitate more
efficient sector
operations

No Impact –
administrative
in nature

No Impact –
administrative in
nature

Protected
Resources

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Cumulative Effects Analysis

VECs
Management Measure

REPORTING
REQUIREMENTS

FISHERY
PROGRAM
ADMINISTRATION
CONTINUED

ALLOCATION OF
GROUNDFISH TO THE
COMMERCIAL AND
RECREATIONAL
GROUNDFISH FISHERIES

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

Managed Resources
Low Positive – improved
reporting requirements
should improve data
collection and lead to
better management. This
is particularly true if
options 2 or 3 are chosen
which would improve
timeliness and accuracy of
information for quota and
ACL monitoring.
Combined with past
actions, this would have a
positive impact on stock
rebuilding

Positive – may provide
more effective
management of fishing
mortality since both the
commercial and
recreational components
are responsible for a
specific amount of catch.
Combined with past
actions, this would have a
positive impact on stock
rebuilding

814

Non-target
Species
Low Positive –
improved
reporting
requirements
should
improve data
collection and
lead to better
management.
Combined
with past
actions, this
would have a
positive
impact on
stock
rebuilding
No Impact –
allocation to
the
commercial
and
recreational
fisheries is not
expected to
result in a
change in
effort on nongroundfish
species and
thus no
cumulative
effect

Habitat
Including
EFH

Human
Communities

Low Positive –
improved
reporting
requirements
could enhance
the
understanding
of fishery
interactions
with protected
species

No Impact –
administrative
in nature

Mixed – vessels
that declare into
one area would
not have to file a
daily landing
report but would
lose flexibility to
fish elsewhere.
Vessels declaring
more than one
area would have
the burden of
daily reporting
(negative).

No Impact –
provided
rebuilding
continues,
additional
impacts to
protected
species are not
anticipated

Low Positive –
may shift
minor effort
from
commercial
fisheries to
recreational
fisheries,
which tend to
have less of an
impact on
habitat.
Overall would
have a positive
cumulative
impact.

Mixed – may
constrain
fisheries
depending upon
the time periods
chosen to
determine the
allocations. FY
1996-2006
would favor
commercial,
2001-2006
favors
recreational

Protected
Resources

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Cumulative Effects Analysis

VECs

Management Measure

FISHERY
PROGRAM
ADMINISTRATION
CONTINUED

CHANGES TO THE DAS
TRANSFER AND LEASING
PROGRAMS

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

Managed Resources

Non-target
Species

Protected
Resources

Habitat
Including
EFH

Human
Communities

Mixed – options 2and 4
would either permanently
or temporarily remove the
transfer conservation tax.
This would likely lead to
greater effort and result in
negative cumulative
impacts. However,
options 1 and 3 would
continue conservation
taxes, which would likely
maintain or reduce effort,
leading to positive
cumulative impacts

Mixed –
options 2 and
4 would
potentially
remove the
tax, possibly
leading to
greater effort
on groundfish
and less effort
on nongroundfish
species. This
would have
positive
cumulative
impacts.
Options 1 and
3 would
continue
conservations
taxes, which
would
maintain or
reduce effort
groundfish and
possible lead
to increased
fishing on nontarget species

Unknown/
Mixed –
options to
modify DAS
leasing and
transfers are
difficult to
assess.
Options 2 and
4 are unclear
and depending
how vessels
react, could be
positive or
negative.
Option 3 could
be positive
because it may
reduce effort,
however, this
is difficult to
predict.
Therefore, it is
not possible to
assess the
cumulative
effects of these
measures with
any certainty.

Mixed – if a
combination of
measures was
adopted such
that the DAS
transfer tax is
decreased and
the leasing tax
is increased,
total DAS
allocations
could be
reduced
enabling
mortality
targets to be
achieved with
less effort.
This total
effect is
difficult to
quantify but
would have a
low positive
cumulative
impact

Mixed/Unknown
– changing or
eliminating the
DAS transfer tax
would improve
the financial gain
to the owner
involved in a
transfer but may
not be sufficient
to offset the loss
associated with
having to give up
permits. For this
reason, the DAS
leasing program
may be more
desirable. It is
difficult to
predict
cumulative
impacts for these
measures.

815

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Cumulative Effects Analysis

VECs
Management Measure

FISHERY
PROGRAM
ADMINISTRATION
CONTINUED

SPECIAL MANAGEMENT
PROGRAMS (SAP)

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

Managed Resources

Mixed – All but one of the
SAPs (i.e., the SNE/MA
Winter Flounder SAP)
would increase effort,
particularly on haddock,
but also on GB cod and
white hake. Individually
these impacts may be
minor but cumulatively
the impact on cod and
white hake could be
negative. However, the
cumulative impact on
winter flounder would be
positive (elimination of
the SNE/MA Winter
Flounder SAP) and
likewise for pollock (B
DAS Program option 2).

816

Non-target
Species

Mixed – many
of the SAPs
would have
little or no
impact on nongroundfish
species
however, the
Closed Area I
Hook Gear
Haddock SAP
may increase
mortality on
nongroundfish
species,
particularly
skates,
resulting in
negative
cumulative
impacts.

Protected
Resources
Mixed – two
of the SAPs
(CA I Hook
Gear and CA
II YT
Flounder) are
expected to
extend the
season of the
SAP and
increase effort,
respectively.
No impact is
expected from
the Eastern
US/CA SAP or
the Cat B DAS
revisions.
Suspension of
the SNE/MA
Winter
Flounder SAP
would likely
be positive.
Overall this
creates varying
cumulative
impacts on
protected
species

Habitat
Including
EFH
Mixed –
changes to the
CA I Hook
Gear and
Eastern
US/CA SAP
would result in
neutral/ status
quo impacts.
The CA II YT
Flounder SAP
would likely
be negative
because some
vessels would
be using
additional
effort.
Elimination of
the SNE/MA
Winter
Flounder SAP
would have a
slight
reduction in
effort, thus a
positive
impact and
impacts from
changes to the
Category B
DAS program
are unclear

Human
Communities
Mixed – overall
modifications to
the SAPs (with
the exception of
the SNE/MA
Winter Flounder
SAP) would
provide
continued or
improved access
to programs.
Economic gain
would remain
limited by TACs,
but would still
provide
opportunities to
gain revenue and
have positive
cumulative
impacts.
Elimination of
the SNE/MA
Winter Flounder
SAP would
result in a low
loss in revenue
(150K fleetwide) but would
contribute to
negative
cumulative
effects.

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Cumulative Effects Analysis

VECs
Management Measure

Managed Resources

Non-target
Species

Protected
Resources

No Impact – primarily
administrative in nature

No Impact –
primarily
administrative
in nature

Mixed – Although this
measure would not
allocate more groundfish
DAS, it could increase the
use of latent effort or
result in an effort shift
from the New England
states to the mid-Atlantic.
This could lead to
negative cumulative
impacts. However, if this
measure shifts effort away
from groundfish and onto
scallops, a resource that is
in better condition, it
could have positive
cumulative impacts on the
multispecies fishery.

Unknown –
skates and
monkfish are
caught by both
groundfish and
scallop gear.
Allowing a
vessel to
possess both
permits could
consolidate
effort but it is
unclear if that
would also
reduce catches
of skates and
monkfish

Unknown –
there could be
some impact
on protected
species but
because it is
unknown how
many vessels
would modify
their permit,
and where or
what these
vessels would
be fishing for,
the impacts
cannot be
determined.

PERIODIC ADJUSTMENT
PROCESS

FISHERY
PROGRAM
ADMINISTRATION
CONTINUED

POSESSESSION OF A
LIMITED ACCESS
MULTISPECIES PERMIT
AND A LIMITED ACCESS
SCALLOP PERMIT BY THE
SAME VESSEL

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

817

Habitat
Including
EFH
No Impact –
primarily
administrative
in nature

No Impact –
not likely to
increase
fishing effort
but it could
shift effort into
other habitats
designated as
EFH.
However, the
shift is
impossible to
predict or
assess.

Human
Communities
No Impact –
primarily
administrative in
nature
Mixed – would
provide greater
flexibility/
revenue to
scallop permit
holders and
reduce economic
costs, resulting in
positive
cumulative
impacts for some
vessel owners.
Groundfish
permits and
effort is
predicted to shift
from ME, NH,
MA and RI to
NY, CT and NJ.
This could have
negative
cumulative
impacts on the
states losing
permits and
positive on those
gaining.

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Cumulative Effects Analysis

VECs
Management Measure

MEASURES TO
MEET MORTALITY
OBJECTIVES

COMMERCIAL FISHERY
MEAUSRES

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

Managed Resources

Positive – All four of the
measures to reduce effort
would have a positive
impact, although options
3A and 4 appear to
provide the greatest effort
reductions, followed by
option 2A and the no
action alternative.
Therefore, the greatest
positive cumulative
impacts would be realized
from either 3A or 4,
followed by 2A and no
action. This set of
alternatives also includes
a measure expected to
have positive cumulative
effects by reducing
mortality on SNE/MA
winter and YT flounder
and a pilot program that
would likely increase
mortality on GOM
haddock`(but away from
more depleted species)
and reduce the haddock
minimum size, allowing a
greater portion of catch to
be landed.

818

Non-target
Species

Positive –
effort
reductions on
groundfish
species would
also be
expected to
reduce the
catch of
monkfish,
skates and
dogfish. This
could be
slightly offset
if vessels
attempt to
redirect onto
these species,
but
opportunities
to redirect are
limited

Protected
Resources

Positive –
effort
reductions in
the groundfish
fishery would
likely reduce
interactions
with protected
species and
have an overall
positive
cumulative
impact on
protected
species

Habitat
Including
EFH
Positive –
effort
reductions
would have a
positive
cumulative
effect on
habitats
designated as
EFH. All four
measures
would reduce
effort, but the
greatest
positive effect
on EFH would
be alternative
3A. Also, a
measure
reducing
bottom time
while targeting
SNE/MA
winter and YT
flounder
would have
positive
cumulative
impacts and
the Haddock
Pilot Program
would have no
impact.

Human
Communities

Negative – all
four alternatives
would
substantially
reduce revenues
and result in
negative,
cumulative
impacts. Option
4 would have the
greatest negative
cumulative
impact, followed
by options 2A,
3A and 1 (no
action).
Measures
facilitating the
target of haddock
(Sink Gillnet
Pilot Program)
and Haddock
Minimum Mesh
Size) would only
provide limited
economic relief.

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Cumulative Effects Analysis

VECs
Management Measure

MEASURES TO
MEET MORTALITY
OBJECTIVES
CONTINUED

RECREATIONAL
MANAGEMENT MEASURES

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

Managed Resources

Mixed – provisions for
landing fillets and the
removal of hook limits
may increase discards,
thus having a low
negative cumulative
effect. All three measures
to reduce mortality on
GOM cod would be
positive, though option
three would provide the
greatest benefit. Of the
four measures to reduce
mortality on GOM
haddock option 1 appears
to provide the greatest
positive impact, while
option four would not
meet mortality targets.
However, all of these
measures would result in
reduced mortality and
positive cumulative
impacts

819

Non-target
Species

No Impact –
recreational
measures are
not expected to
have an impact
on nongroundfish
species, thus
no cumulative
impact

Protected
Resources

No Impact –
protected
species are not
known to
interact with
the
recreational
fishery, thus
no cumulative
impact

Habitat
Including
EFH

Human
Communities

No Impact –
the
recreational
fishery does
not impact
habitat, thus
no cumulative
impact

Mixed – impacts
for landing fillets
are highly
variable
depending on
angler
preference.
Eliminating the
two hook
minimum would
have positive
economic and
social impacts
unless it drives
catch up and
results in
exceeding ACLs.
For GOM cod
mortality
reductions,
option 3 has the
greatest negative
economic
impacts followed
by 1 and 2. For
GOM haddock,
option 3 has the
greatest negative
impact followed
by 2 and 1.

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Cumulative Effects Analysis

VECs
Management Measure

Non-target
Species

ATLANTIC HALIBUT
MINIMUM SIZE

Low Positive – Increasing
the minimum size limit
may slightly reduce
fishing mortality and
increase the reproductive
capability of this stock.
This should result in
positive cumulative
impacts.

No Impact – a
change in the
halibut
minimum size
is not expected
to have an
impact on nongroundfish
species, thus
no cumulative
impact

No Impact –
this measure
will not impact
overall fishing
effort or
protected
species, thus
no cumulative
impact

No Impact –
this measure
will not impact
overall fishing
effort or
habitat, thus
no cumulative
impact

PROHIBITION ON
RETENTION OF ATLANTIC
WOLFFISH

Positive – prohibiting the
retention of wolffish
should result in a
reduction in mortality on
this likely overfished
stock. This measure,
when combined with past
effort reductions, should
have a positive
cumulative impact.

No Impact – a
prohibition on
the retention of
wolffish is not
expected to
have an impact
on nongroundfish
species, thus
no cumulative
impact

Mixed –
should
wolffish be
listed, this
measure would
have positive
cumulative
impacts. If
wolffish are
not listed, then
impacts would
be neutral.

No Impact –
because there
is no directed
fishery on
wolffish, this
measure is not
expected to
have any
impact on
habitats
designated as
EFH

MEASURES TO
MEET MORTALITY
OBJECTIVES
CONTINUED

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

820

Protected
Resources

Habitat
Including
EFH

Managed Resources

Human
Communities
Low Negative –
an increase in
minimum fish
size will likely
result in a loss of
commercial
revenue and may
effect the value
of a recreational
trip, resulting in
negative
cumulative
impacts
Negative –
commercial
revenues would
be reduced by
100K-150K,
compounding the
negative
cumulative
impacts from
other past
revenue
reductions

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Cumulative Effects Analysis

VECs
Management Measure

MEASURES TO
MEET MORTALITY
OBJECTIVES
CONTINUED

IMPLEMENTATION OF
ADDITIONAL
SECTORS/MODIFICATIONS
TO EXISTING SECTORS

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

Managed Resources

Non-target
Species

Positive – information
suggests that ITQ systems
(of which sectors are
similar) increase the
likelihood that a fishery
will be sustainable.
Regulatory discards are
also expected to decline
with sectors. Therefore,
the creation of several
additional sectors (for a
total of 19 sectors) is
expected to have positive
cumulative impacts, when
combined with past and
future management
actions.

Positive – the
creation of
sectors is
expected to
reduce all
discards on all
groundfish
trips, including
discards of
monkfish,
skates and
dogfish. This,
when
combined with
past and future
actions to
reduce efforts
on these
species, should
result in
positive
cumulative
impacts

821

Protected
Resources

Positive –if
effort
reductions
result from the
formation of
additional
sectors, it
would reduce
interactions
with protected
species
because
vessels would
be fishing for
less time. This
would result in
positive
cumulative
impacts.

Habitat
Including
EFH

Human
Communities

No Impact –
administrative
in nature

Mixed – sectors
should be able to
operate in a more
efficient manner
which reduces
trip costs and
increases
flexibility. This
would result in
positive
cumulative
impacts.
However,
increased
reporting and
monitoring costs
could counter
these positive
impacts and
create negative
economic
cumulative
impacts

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Cumulative Effects Analysis

VECs
Management Measure

MEASURES TO
MEET MORTALITY
OBJECTIVES
CONTINUED

ACCOUNTABILITY
MEASURES (AM)

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

Managed Resources
Positive – for the
commercial fishery there
are two options for AMs,
both of which are positive
when compared to no
action. However, option
1 does have the threat of a
derby fishery and option 2
requires that several
assumptions be made,
some of which are
difficult to validate.
Regardless, either of these
options when compared to
having no AM in effect,
would improve the ability
to stay within fishing
mortality targets and
result in positive
cumulative impacts. For
the recreational fishery,
there are three options
that are all very similar
and each would provide a
positive cumulative
impact over the no action.

822

Non-target
Species

Protected
Resources

No Impact –
adopting AMs
for the
commercial
and
recreational
fisheries is not
expected to
have an impact
on nongroundfish
species, thus
no cumulative
impact

Mixed/
Unknown –
both options
for the
commercial
fishery are
difficult to
predict
because they
will likely
result in
behavioral
changes such
as effort shifts
and restricted
areas and
times.
However,
because the
recreational
fishery has no
known impact
with protected
species,
recreational
AMs would
have no
impact.

Habitat
Including
EFH

Mixed/
Unknown –
For
commercial
vessels;
depends on
specific
implementation
No Impact –
For
recreational
vessels; gear
does not
impact habitat

Human
Communities

Positive – over
the long-term,
the
implementation
of effective AMs
would be
expected to
contribute to the
rebuilding of
groundfish
stocks, resulting
in increased
revenues for the
commercial
fishery and
increased
recreational
harvest. This
would result in
positive
cumulative
impacts

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Cumulative Effects Analysis

Biological Cumulative Impacts
As noted, the long-term trend for cumulative impacts has been positive. Among the groups of
measures considered in this action (updates to status determination criteria and formal rebuilding
programs, fishery program administration, and measures to meet mortality objectives), very few
of the alternatives would actually increase effort and among those that do, the increase is often on
stocks such as haddock, that are not overfished nor have overfishing occurring.
Updates chosen by the Council as their proposed alternatives to the status determination criteria
and rebuilding programs would have positive cumulative impacts on all species managed under
the NE Multispecies FMP since these measures would bring management of the stocks in line
with the most recent scientific advice from GARM III and help better achieve sustainable yield of
the groundfish stocks. However, were the no action options for these alternatives chosen, the
cumulative impact would likely remain positive, although to a lesser degree. This is because
under the rebuilding schedule adopted through prior groundfish actions, effort would continue to
be constrained, albeit without the adjustments needed to rebuild the stocks in a more timely
fashion. Alternately, there would be no substantial cumulative impacts on non-groundfish species
provided that groundfish stocks continue to be managed toward sustainable levels. This is
because the primary non-groundfish species analyzed through this action are managed under
other FMPs and their management programs account for some level of mortality via the
multispecies fishery. Provided that the level of mortality is relatively stable, little direct or
cumulative impacts are predicted for these non-groundfish species.
Several alternatives contained within the group of measures under fishery program administration
would either have no or neutral impacts or be administrative in nature and result in no impact to
either managed resources or non-groundfish species, thus resulting in no cumulative impact.
Alternatives falling into this category include the definition and formation of a sector, preparation
of a sector formation proposal and operations plan, sector annual reports, the periodic adjustment
process, and movement between sectors. Another set of alternatives, allocation of resources or
ACE, while not predicted to have biological impacts on directed groundfish species, could have
indirect impacts on bycatch species that may result in greater effort. However, the additional
level of effort is difficult to predict and unless it results in a substantial increase, is not expected
to have a negative cumulative impact.
Measures regarding sector participation in special management programs and the interaction of
sectors with common pool vessels/universal exemptions tend to have mixed impacts. The
proposed action would allow sector vessels to participate in special management programs such
as the various SAPs. Vessels participating in these programs would have their catch limited to
the amount of allocated ACE, resulting in little or no impact compared to the no action alternative
for directed multispecies. Therefore, no cumulative impacts would be expected. However, for
non-groundfish stocks, it is possible that changes in fishing practices while participating in a
SAP, such as increases in catch per unit effort on directed groundfish species, may increase the
catch of non-groundfish species or mean that vessels obtain their ACE more quickly and shift
effort onto non-groundfish stocks. Although difficult to predict with certainty, it is possible that
these increases could be in excess of estimated effort, resulting in at least slightly negative
cumulative impacts for non-groundfish species when considered with past overfishing practices.
Regarding the interaction of sectors with the proposed common pool vessels/universal
exemptions, these measures clarify regulations that sectors cannot be exempt from (i.e., measures
that apply to both sector and non-sector vessels) and measures that sectors will be exempt from
such as trip limits, seasonal closed areas, six and a half inch mesh codend, and all the GOM
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

823

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Cumulative Effects Analysis

rolling closure areas with the exception of several specific blocks. Compared to the no action
alternative, there are several direct and indirect impacts to groundfish species that could
contribute to cumulative impacts. While exemptions to DAS and seasonal closed areas would
likely have little or no direct impact and thus cause no cumulative impacts, the use of a six-inch
mesh codend and exemption from much the area covered by rolling closures would likely have
some effect. In the case of the codend, the use of a smaller mesh size could equate to the catch of
smaller haddock or a larger catch of haddock than allocated via sector ACE. If left unchecked for
a lengthy period of time, this could ultimately have a negative impact on haddock stocks.
However, given that the stock is neither overfished nor is overfishing occurring, it is difficult to
predict whether such changes would lead to negative cumulative impacts on haddock. Regarding
the preferred action to provide sector vessels exemptions from much of the rolling closures, to the
extent that fishing occurs during periods when cod are aggregated, it may disrupt spawning or
spawning habitat and when considered with past overfishing practices, could result in some level
of negative cumulative impacts.
Two categories of alternatives – annual catch limits and the addition of Atlantic wolffish to the
multispecies management unit/designation of EFH – are initially more administrative in nature
but when combined with future actions, should yield positive cumulative impacts because
adoption of these measures would lay the groundwork for better management in the future.
Other measures are predicted to have positive cumulative impacts, including the allocation of
U.S./Canada shared stocks to sectors and sector monitoring and enforcement provisions. In the
case of the U.S./Canada shared stock allocation, although no direct impacts to groundfish species
are predicted, the preferred alternative would allocate cod and haddock on Eastern Georges Bank
to sectors and may reduce the incentive for a derby fishery, thus reducing discards of non-target
species. While precise impacts are difficult to predict, when considered with other past and
present management actions intended to control the mortality of non-groundfish species, this
measure is likely to have a slightly positive cumulative impact. The adoption of the preferred
monitoring and enforcement provisions are designed to improve confidence that sector catches
are accurate and reported correctly. When combined with past groundfish management actions,
these measures should improve the likelihood of controlling fishing mortality, thus having an
overall positive cumulative impact when taken into account with other ongoing past and present
efforts to maintain sustainable groundfish stocks.
Alternatives with the greatest variability within the group of fishery program administration
measures include measures proposed to allow the transfer of ACE, changes to the DAS leasing
and transfer program, SAPs, and the possession of a limited access multispecies and scallop
permit by the same vessel. The proposed measure to allow the transfer of ACE, when compared
to the no action alternative, could increase the risk that overfishing would occur, leading to
negative cumulative impacts on groundfish stocks. However, the no action alternative may also
lead to negative cumulative impacts because without the ability to carryover unused ACE, vessels
may fish right up to their quota, resulting in an overage or discarding. Within changes to the
DAS leasing and transfer programs, the preferred alternative to permanently remove the transfer
tax could increase effort on groundfish because it may increase the number of transfers and thus
the number of DAS in use. A temporary suspension of the transfer tax would have similar
results, but only for the short-term because it would be a temporary program. Under both these
scenarios, cumulative impacts to non-groundfish species may be positive because it could result
in the reduction of some permits in other limited access fisheries which in combination with
current and past management practices would have a positive effect. Leaving the transfer tax in
effect or adding a DAS leasing tax would be expected to result in status quo or a reduction in
fishing effort, respectively, providing positive cumulative impacts. Another set of alternatives
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

824

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Cumulative Effects Analysis

with mixed impacts would be those involving SAPs. All but one of the proposed changes to
SAPs would increase or extend effort, particularly on haddock but also on cod and white hake.
While the haddock resource is sustainable, the addition/extension of multiple programs targeting
the species could have negative cumulative effects, particularly when combined with the
proposed measure (see below) to reduce the minimum catch size for haddock. Also, impacts to
cod and white hake, two depleted species, would provide additional negative cumulative impacts.
The only positive effect from this suite of measures would be the elimination of the SNE/MA
Winter Flounder SAP, which should help reduce effort on this overfished species. Finally,
allowing for the possession of a limited access multispecies and scallop permit by the same vessel
would not allocate more groundfish resources, but could increase the use of latent effort or shift
effort away from states in New England to those in the mid-Atlantic. While this could have
negative cumulative impacts, if effort were to shift off of groundfish and on to the scallop
resource (which is in much better condition than many groundfish species) it could have positive
cumulative impacts. Further; although non-groundfish species such as skates and monkfish are
caught by groundfish and scallop gear, it is difficult to predict the impact this consolidated effort
may have and thus to state whether there would be cumulative impacts.
The last group of alternatives, measures to meet mortality objectives would primarily provide
positive cumulative impacts to managed groundfish species and would either have positive or no
impact on non-groundfish species. As repeatedly stated, the nature of fisheries management is to
manage toward sustainable stocks and mortality reductions are intended to do just that by
furthering the rebuilding process. However, there are differences among some measures
regarding their effectiveness and overall contribution to positive cumulative effects. For
example, under the commercial fishery measures designed to maintain stock rebuilding,
alternatives that would implement a 24-hour DAS clock (preferred alternative) and restricted gear
areas or reduce DAS and add restricted gear areas would provide the greatest overall benefit and
positive cumulative impact, followed by the use of differential DAS and trip limits or taking no
action which would entail a reduction in DAS. Likewise, for recreational measures, provisions
for landing filleted fish and the removal of hook limits could have a negative cumulative impact.
However, this would hopefully be offset by additional measures to reduce mortality on GOM
haddock and cod. Other proposed measures, such as changes to the Atlantic halibut minimum
size, a prohibition on the retention of wolffish, and the implementation of AMs, would all
contribute to sustainable groundfish stocks and thus be expected to have positive cumulative
impacts with no impact on non-groundfish species.
Protected Resource Cumulative Impacts
As noted in the environmental consequences analysis for protected species, the primary impact of
alternatives in this amendment on protected species is driven by the magnitude and breadth of
changes in fishing effort that are required. This also is typically the case for the cumulative
impacts to protected species and change in effort was the primary factor used in determining the
cumulative impact of the measures.
Regarding the measures contained under updates to status determination criteria and formal
rebuilding programs, no impact is expected provided groundfish stocks continue to rebuild. This
is because these alternatives do not directly change fishing effort or behavior, but rather lay the
groundwork to do so in the future.
Under fishery program administration, most measures are not anticipated to affect protected
species because they would have only indirect impacts on fishing effort and would likely not
substantially increase or decrease fishing gear interactions. Further, impacts from other
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

825

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Cumulative Effects Analysis

measures, such as changes to the DAS transfer conservation tax, removal of the leasing
cap/eligibility of CPH permits to lease DAS, and possession of a limited access multispecies and
scallop permit by the same vessel are unknown or difficult to predict. For example, vessel
reactions to the modifications in the transfer and leasing programs could result in greater or less
effort and/or greater effort but less time on the water thus fewer opportunities for gear
interactions. However, because much of the outcome depends upon how the industry reacts, it is
not possible to provide a reliable assessment of the impacts from these measures. Likewise, it is
difficult to predict how many vessels would take advantage of the opportunity to combine
multispecies and scallop permits. If effort were to shift more toward scallop vessels, it could
increase interactions with turtles. However, vessels that had primarily been scalloping could
begin fishing more for groundfish, thus reducing opportunities for turtle interactions, but
increasing gear interactions between small mammals and trawls. Therefore, there are multiple
outcomes that could result in either positive or negative cumulative impacts from these measures;
the extent of which is difficult to predict.
Positive cumulative impacts are also anticipated for several measures that fall under fishery
program administration. For example, the preferred alternate to add wolffish to the multispecies
management unit would be positive, particularly if this species is not listed as endangered,
because it provides an additional mechanism for protection. Improved monitoring and
enforcement in the sector program and better reporting requirements would also provide positive
cumulative impacts to protected species if these measures afford improved information regarding
interactions between fisheries and protected species. Finally, changes or the
extension/elimination of SAPs could result in a combination of positive and negative cumulative
impacts. For example, the preferred alternatives to expand the Hook Gear Haddock SAP and
modifications to the CA II Yellowtail Flounder SAP could increase effort and thus gear
interactions resulting in negative cumulative impacts. However, suspension of the SNE/MA
Winter Flounder SAP would likely have slightly positive cumulative impacts as it would reduce
gear interactions and no impacts are anticipated from changes to the Eastern .U.S./Canada SAP or
the Category B DAS Program.
The third and final group of alternatives falls under measures to meet mortality objectives.
Mostly positive cumulative impacts would be expected as a result of the measures to reduce
commercial fishing effort. This is because all of these measures would involve substantial effort
reductions which should reduce gear interactions, particularly when factored into past effort
reductions and management actions taken through the ESA, MMPA and Magnuson-Stevens Act.
Other measures with positive cumulative impacts include the preferred alternatives to implement
several additional sectors and modify existing sectors, which should lead to more efficient fishing
operations and ultimately fewer gear interactions with protected species. Unknown impacts are
expected from the proposed implementation of AMs. This is because it is difficult to predict the
behavioral changes such as effort shifts which may result from AMs. Finally, among this group
of measures are two sets of alternatives that are predicted to have no impact on protected species,
recreational measures and a proposed change to the Atlantic halibut minimum size. This is
because, if implemented, these proposed changes would not impact gear interactions with
protected species.
Habitat Cumulative Impacts
While the environmental impacts analysis of this document is focused on the direct and indirect
impacts of this action on EFH, the cumulative effects assessment also considers non-fishing
impacts such as those summarized in Appendix I and factored into the baseline and
summarized in Table 302. Overall, the impact of non-fishing factors is difficult to measure.
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

826

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Cumulative Effects Analysis

Because many groundfish species move throughout the entire management area and spend a
small or no portion of their life in the near-shore areas where non-fishing impacts are most acute,
the effects are thought to be insignificant when viewed in the context of cumulative impacts.
However, species with greater inshore habitat reliance are likely more negatively impacted.
Another non-fishing factor that appears to have a negative impact on groundfish and other
fisheries resources is climate change. Although it is not possible to factor in the exact role that
climate change may be having on the groundfish fishery, when impacts such as increased
acidification and rising water temperatures are factored into the unsustainable mortality that has
occurred at times in the past, it is possible that the combined cumulative impacts have been
negative.
For measures contained under updates to status determination criteria and formal rebuilding
programs, no impact is expected provided groundfish stocks continue to rebuild. This is because
these alternatives do not directly change fishing effort or behavior, but rather lay the groundwork
for doing so in the future.
Regarding the group of measures that fall under fishing program administration, several would
also have no cumulative impact on habitat such as establishing ACLs, addition of wolffish to the
multispecies management unit, sector administrative provisions, allocation of resources and
U.S./Canada TACs for sectors, sector monitoring and enforcement, the transfer of ACE, sector
participation in SAPs, the interaction of sectors with common pool vessels/universal exemptions,
movement between sectors, reporting requirements, periodic adjustment process, and the
possession of a limited access multispecies and scallop permit by the same vessel. Several groups
of alternatives would have positive or a combination of positive and negative cumulative impacts.
This includes preferred measure allocating groundfish to commercial and recreational fisheries.
Although difficult to predict, under this measure if effort were to shift from commercial to
recreational fisheries, which tend to have fewer habitat interactions, then it could result in positive
cumulative impacts compared to the no action alternative. Other alternatives with mixed impacts
include changes to the DAS transfer and leasing program and SAPs. The Council’s preferred
alternatives to the transfer and leasing programs would eliminate the transfer tax and the DAS
leasing cap, such that in theory vessels would be able to achieve mortality targets with less effort
which would improve the quality of habitat and have positive cumulative impacts when taken into
account with past actions. However, under the no action alternatives the opposite would occur
and the cumulative impacts would be negative. Likewise, proposed changes to the SAPs involve
a multitude of impacts. Preferred measures to modify the CA I Hook Gear Haddock SAP and
Eastern U.S./Canada SAP would result in neutral cumulative impacts. Changes to the CA II
Yellowtail Flounder SAP would likely be negative because some vessels would be using
additional effort, thus increasing gear contact with the ocean floor. Finally, suspension of the
SNE/Winter Flounder SAP would have a slight positive cumulative impact due to fewer gear
interactions with the ocean floor and cumulative impacts from changes to the Category B DAS
Program are difficult to predict.
The last category of alternatives, commercial fishery measures, would have no impact on habitat,
except for measures to reduce effort, which when combined with the progress made through past
actions and the positive impacts expected from the future implementation of the EFH Omnibus
Amendment. This suite of alternatives would provide substantial effort reductions with the
greatest positive cumulative impact on habitats designated as EFH resulting from option 3A
(preferred alternative). While option 4 would also have positive cumulative impacts, it may lead
to increased bottom contact time by mobile bottom tending gear. Likewise, options 2 and no
action would also have positive cumulative impacts, but to a lesser degree than option 3A.
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

827

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Cumulative Effects Analysis

Human Communities Cumulative Impacts
Unlike other VECs, there are very few measures that do not impact human communities in some
way. For measures found under updates to status determination criteria and formal rebuilding
programs, revised criteria are thought to have a positive cumulative impact because when
combined with past and current actions, overall revenues should increase when compared to the
cumulative impacts from the corresponding no action alternatives.
Regarding measures found under the category of fishery program administration, the great
majority of alternatives would result in a reduction in revenues and, when combined with past
reductions, result in negative cumulative impacts. Negative measures include the implementation
process for setting ACLs (preferred alternative), the addition of wolffish to the multispecies
management unit (preferred alternative), various sector administrative provisions including
preferred alternatives that modify how sectors are formed, and the content of their operations plan
and annual reports, the allocation of resources, allocations in the U.S/Canada area, and sector
monitoring and enforcement. Several other measures would have some combination of positive
and negative cumulative impacts. For example, the preferred alternative to allow the transfer
ACE would provide increased flexibility and revenues, resulting in positive cumulative impacts.
The opposite would be true of the no action alternative. For reporting requirements, the
cumulative outcome depends on whether a vessel is able to increase its flexibility (positive)
versus taking on the increased burden of daily reporting (negative). With the allocation of
groundfish to the commercial and recreational fisheries, the impact lies largely in which years are
chosen to determine the time period used for determining allocations. For example, using the
period of FY 1996 through 2006, the share for the commercial component is larger and would
likely constrain the recreational fishery, resulting in negative cumulative impacts. However, for
the period of FY 2001 through 2006 (preferred alternative), the opposite would be true and the
commercial fishery would be constrained. Because past cumulative impacts have had a greater
negative impact on the commercial fishery, further constraining the commercial fleet would likely
have the greatest negative overall cumulative effect.
Additional mixed impacts result from measures to change the DAS transfer and leasing program,
SAPs, and the possession of a limited access multispecies and scallop permit by the same vessel.
In all of these alternatives, impacts hinge on tradeoffs. For the DAS transfer and leasing tax
alternatives, the elimination of the tax is viewed as positive (preferred alternative), but it is
unclear as to whether forfeiting non-groundfish permits as part of the sale would be worthwhile to
the industry, particularly if the leasing program continues to be tax free. Continued access to the
SAPs would provide economic gains and added flexibility but the loss of the SNE/MA Flounder
SAP, though only responsible for a low level of revenue, would add to a growing number of other
actions that produced negative cumulative impacts. Finally, the preferred measure allowing the
possession of both scallop and multispecies permits would primarily have positive impacts
because it could reduce operating costs. However, effort is predicted to shift from the northern to
southern New England region which could have further negative cumulative impacts on the
communities and ports in the Northeast.
The final group of alternatives, measures to meet mortality objectives, primarily results in
negative impacts, at least in the short-term as stocks continue to rebuild and become sustainable.
Measures to control commercial fishery effort would have the greatest negative cumulative
impact, along with constrictions on recreational catches of GOM cod and haddock, an increase in
the Atlantic halibut minimum size, and a prohibition on the retention of wolffish. However, the
implementation of additional sectors, by providing improved efficiency and flexibility, along with
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

828

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Cumulative Effects Analysis

the long-term impact that the implementation of AMs could have on rebuilding and maintaining
sustainable stocks, would have positive cumulative impacts.
Total Cumulative Impacts of Amendment 16
When considering the long-term positive trends in rebuilding in combination with further effort
control measures designed to maintain or achieve sustainable stocks, the cumulative impact of this
action would be positive. While the short-term impacts, particularly to the human communities VEC,
continue to be negative primarily due to economic losses, in the future as the status of the fishery
improves and stocks recover, the industry and communities that rely on fisheries will incur positive
impacts.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

829

Environmental Impacts of the Management Alternatives
Cumulative Effects Analysis

Intentionally Blank

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

830

Data and Research Needs
Cumulative Effects Analysis

8.0 Data and Research Needs
The M-S Act (section 303(a)) requires that FMPs identify data and research needs. The Council’s
Research Steering Committee reviews these needs on a periodic basis and updates them as
needed. The most recent review occurred in November, 2008. The following needs related to the
groundfish fishery were identified. This list may be revised or updated by the Council at any time.
Only needs related to the multispecies fishery are shown here.
I. Fisheries
A. Stock Assessments
1. Spatial-temporal distributions
Further investigations into stock definition, stock movements, mixing, and migration
through tagging studies, DNA markers, morphological characteristics and other
means for groundfish, monkfish, skates, herring, and silver hake.
2. Biology
No needs specific to groundfish.
3. Other
Investigate/determine the cause for retrospective patterns in New England
multispecies groundfish assessments, and identify appropriate adjustments (e.g.,
data or model revisions) to resolve those patterns.

B. Surveys
Conduct intensive industry-based surveys of each of the five sea scallop access areas
(Closed Area I, Closed Area II, Nantucket Lightship, Elephant Trunk and Delmarva
areas) and beyond (Northern Gulf of Maine management area and Southern New
England). Research new advanced scallop and multipurpose survey technologies
(video, sonar, towed, AUV, etc.) and protocols that should be compatible with and
complement the existing scallop resource surveys. Conduct peer-review and intersurvey calibrations of new and existing scallop surveys. Conduct deepwater (> 200
m) surveys and efficiency estimation of NMFS survey gear for monkfish. Surveys of
spawning aggregations of silver hake on the southern flank of Georges Bank are also
needed. Continue development of hydroacoustic surveys of pelagic species to
provide an independent means of estimating stock sizes and/or defining localized
depletion (long-term research).

C. Fishery Performance and Monitoring
1. Improve sampling of commercial catch at age data, such as through cooperative
NMFS/industry programs to supplement port agent activities for groundfish and
similarly for Atlantic herring, with an emphasis on bycatch.
2. Develop appropriate programs to collect information required for social and
economic impact analyses for groundfish.
3. Conduct research on the extent and composition of discards and bycatch in the
monkfish, groundfish (including small-mesh) and skate fisheries.
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

831

Data and Research Needs
Cumulative Effects Analysis

4. Investigate discard mortality rates by gear for monkfish and groundfish, and by
gear type, area, season, depth and bottom type for all seven skate species with an
emphasis on overfished species (thorny, winter and little skates).

D. Fisheries Management
Groundfish
1. Synthesize the available information/research results to improve utility to managers
(in particular related to the following items):
¾ Investigate relationships between stocks, including predator/prey relationships
and evaluate whether stock status of some species is slowing the rebuilding of
groundfish stocks.
¾ Undertake comparative studies on the impacts (positive and negative) of gear on
habitat, such as the different impacts between chain nets, roller gear and
rockhopper gear, etc. Conduct studies on whether limiting roller or rockhopper
gear, or specifying other aspects of trawl gear, results in areas of complex habitat
that are not used by trawl fishermen.
¾ Conduct research on the extent and composition of discards and bycatch in the
groundfish fishery, including research to estimate discard mortality rates by gear
for groundfish.
2. Develop a management strategy evaluation program (a specific approach to address
scientific and management uncertainty).
3. Develop industry–based information collection systems to improve information used
for groundfish management.
4. Quantify the impacts of closed areas, and evaluate the effectiveness of timing
closures to coincide with spawning activity (e.g. Gulf of Maine rolling closures).
5. Investigate the effect of various management instruments (specifically user rights
and ocean zoning) on management performance (biological, social and habitat) and
enforcement.
6. Investigate the feasibility of public leasing of vessels to reduce fishing mortality for
fisheries that have long-term potential to sustain the existing fleet.
7. Consider management options for minimizing impacts on vulnerable marine
ecosystems.
8. Evaluate effects and effectiveness of permanent closed areas.

II. Fisheries Interactions
Bycatch
1. Research fishing practices or gear modifications that may change the ratio of
component catch species or improve size and species selectivity of gear in
groundfish, scallop, monkfish, herring and skates.
2. Synthesize predation information on herring and other forage fishes and conduct
investigations to address information gaps; investigate the role of herring and other
forage fishes in the Northwest Atlantic ecosystem and the importance of herring

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

832

Data and Research Needs
Cumulative Effects Analysis

and other species as a forage for other commercial fish stocks; assess the importance
of herring as forage relative to other forage species in the region.

Expanded Ecosystem Studies
1. Explore ocean zoning and the use (siting) of marine resource services for long-term
multi-jurisdictional planning.
2. Investigate relationships between stocks, including predator/prey relationships and
evaluate whether stock status of some species is slowing the rebuilding of
groundfish stocks.
3. Monitor trends in non-target, ecosystem components (e.g., wolffish).

Protected Species
1. Develop gear modifications or fishing techniques that may be used to reduce or
eliminate the threat of sea turtle interactions without unacceptable reductions in
target retention in all fisheries.

III. Habitat
1. Investigate growth rates for deep sea coral species.
2. Undertake detailed habitat mapping throughout the Council’s area of operations,
including along the continental slope for red crab and other deepwater species.
3. Further study the contribution of benthic habitat to prey survivability.
4. Quantify adverse impacts of fishing gears and gains to habitat possible through
increases in catch per unit of fishing effort.
5. Conduct before-after control impact studies (BACI) in New England waters to test
for fishing gear impacts in different substrates, depths and energy environments.
6. Link habitat types and their specific functions with fishery resource productivity.
7. (Evaluate/quantify the effects) of land-based activities on critical ocean habitats,
including the potential for designating EFH using expanded metrics such as fish
condition indices and habitat quality.
FMP-Specific Habitat Research
Groundfish
Undertake comparative studies on the impacts (positive and negative) of gear on
habitat, such as the different impacts between chain nets, roller gear, and rockhopper
gear, etc. Studies on whether limiting roller or rockhopper gear, or specifying other
aspects of trawl gear, results in areas of complex habitat that are not used by trawl
fishermen.

IV. Other Areas of Research
Groundfish
Develop appropriate programs to collect information required for social and
economic impact analyses.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

833

Data and Research Needs
Cumulative Effects Analysis

Intentionally Blank

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

834

Applicable Law
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act

9.0 Applicable Law
9.1

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act

9.1.1 Consistency with National Standards
Section 301 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that regulations implementing any fishery
management plan or amendment be consistent with the ten national standards listed below. This
section will be completed when the Proposed Action is submitted in the final amendment and
EIS.
Conservation and management measures shall prevent overfishing while achieving, on a
continuing basis, the optimum yield from each fishery for the United States fishing industry.
The proposed management measures are designed to end overfishing on the groundfish stocks
that are currently subject to excessive fishing pressure. In addition, the proposed action continues
formal rebuilding programs that have already been designed for previously overfished stocks, and
implements additional plans for stocks that are newly determined to be overfished. For overfished
fisheries, the Magnuson-Stevens Act defines optimum yield as the amount of fish which provides
for rebuilding to a level consistent with producing the maximum sustainable yield from the
fishery. The measures are designed to achieve the fishing mortality rates, and yields, necessary to
rebuild the overfished stocks as well as to keep fishing mortality below overfishing levels for
stocks that are not in a rebuilding program. As described in section 7.2.1, this action is expected
to end overfishing on groundfish stocks.
Because of the multispecies nature of this fishery, the measures necessary to rebuild overfished
stocks also reduce fishing mortality on healthy stocks. This could prevent harvesting the optimum
yield from those stocks while rebuilding programs are being followed for the overfished stocks.
The proposed action includes measures that are designed to allow increased harvests of healthy
stocks. These measures include the provisions for special access programs to target healthy
stocks, as well as restricted gear areas to promote selective fishing practices. While many of the
details of these programs have yet to be developed, the proposed action establishes the structure
that can be used to access healthy stocks in order that optimum yield can be harvested from them
during the period that other stocks are being rebuilt.

Conservation and management measures shall be based on the best scientific information
available.
The proposed action is based on the most recent estimates of stock status available for each of
twenty stocks included in the management unit. These estimates are in the form of information
provided by the Northeast Fisheries Science Center in the GARM III proceedings. In the case of
Atlantic wolffish, stock status was estimated by the NEFSC in the proceedings of the Data Poor
Working Group (DPWG). For all stocks, stock size and fishing mortality in calendar year 2007
was estimated based on catch, trawl survey, observer, and other data through 2007. Management
targets for this action are also based on the results of the GARM III and the DPWG, which
contain a comprehensive review of fishing mortality thresholds and biomass targets for the
groundfish complex.
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

835

Applicable Law
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act

With respect to bycatch information, the action uses bycatch information from the most recent
assessments. Bycatch data from observer reports, vessel logbooks, or other sources must be
rigorously reviewed before conclusions can be drawn on the extent and amount of bycatch. While
additional observer data has been collected since the most recent assessments were completed, it
has not been analyzed or reviewed through the stock assessment process and thus cannot be used.
The economic analyses in this document are based primarily on landings, revenue, and effort
information collected through the NMFS data collection systems used for this fishery.

To the extent practicable, an individual stock of fish shall be managed as a unit
throughout its range, and interrelated stocks of fish shall be managed as a unit or in
close coordination.
The proposed action manages each individual groundfish stock as a unit throughout its range. In
general, management measures specifically designed for one stock are applied to the entire range
of the stock. There are minor exceptions, such as when a trip limit is applied to an area slightly
different than the stock area to facilitate management and enforcement concerns. In addition, the
groundfish complex as a whole is managed in close coordination. Many of the management
measures are applied to all groundfish stocks. They are designed and evaluated for their impact
on the fishery as a whole.

Conservation and management measures shall not discriminate between residents of
different states. If it becomes necessary to allocate or assign fishing privileges among
various United States fishermen, such allocation shall be (A) fair and equitable to all
such fishermen; (B) reasonably calculated to promote conservation; and (C) carried out
in such a manner that no particular individual, corporation, or other entity acquires an
excessive share of such privileges.
The proposed management measures do not discriminate between residents of different states.
They are applied equally to all permit holders, regardless of homeport or location. While the
measures do not discriminate between permit holders, they do have different impacts on different
participants. This is because of the differences in the distribution of fish and the varying stock
levels in the complex. For example, the measures designed to rebuild GB cod have more impacts
on fishermen who target that stock. Some of these impacts may be localized, as often
communities near the stock may have developed small boat fisheries that target it. These
distributive impacts are difficult to avoid given the requirement to rebuild overfished stocks. Even
if the measures are designed to treat all permit holders the same, the fact that fish stocks are not
distributed evenly, and that individual vessels may target specific stocks, means that distributive
impacts cannot be avoided.
The proposed action does include some measures designed to mitigate these distributive impacts.
The sector allocation program and special management programs, including special access areas
and the Category B DAS program, are specifically designed to foster ways to target healthy
stocks to mitigate some of these distributional impacts.
The proposed action does allocate fishing privileges in several ways. First, for two stocks (GOM
cod and GOM haddock), available groundfish catch is allocated to the commercial and
recreational components of the fishery. This decision is based on catch history from 2001-2006
for the two components. Second, within the commercial fishery, permits eligible to join sectors
are assigned a Potential Sector Contribution (PSC) that determines the pounds of fish that are
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

836

Applicable Law
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act

allocated to the sector when the permit joins the sector. These PSCs are calculated under two
different methods. For most stocks, the PSC is based on landings history from 1996-2006 for all
permits. For GB cod, permits committed to one of the two existing sectors have their PSC
determined using a different time period (1996-2001).
Using different periods for the various allocation decisions raised concerns that the allocation of
fishing privileges was not fair and equitable. This complaint is clearly not valid for the
commercial and recreational allocation decision: the same years are used for both components.
Both components were subject to restrictive management measures during this period, though the
impacts of those measures may not have been identical. The catch history is based on data peer
reviewed through GARM III. The use of one set of years for allocating between these two groups
does not mean the same set of years needs to be used to distribute this allocation within one of the
groups – this is a separate decision that need not use the same period or method. For this reason,
using a different set of years to calculate the PSC for commercial permits than the years used for
the recreational/commercial allocation is not unfair or inequitable.
The use of two different time periods to determine the PSC for GB cod also raised concerns about
fairness. The issue here is more complex. If sectors are to operate successfully, they need some
certainty that their allocation is not likely to change based on future decisions to form sectors by
other fishermen. The two existing sectors should not be forced to revisit their business plans as a
result of other fishermen deciding to form sectors several years later, or due to a Council decision
to revise sector policies. In essence the Council’s decision in this case establishes a policy that
sector allocation decisions, once made, will be adhered to. While this cannot be guaranteed
because a future Council could make a different decision, the Council’s decision on the GB cod
PSC at least serves as a clear statement of intent. All of the PSCs calculated for permits not
committed to one of the existing sectors are based on the same period.
The Council discussed whether to include provisions that limit the ACE that can be acquired by a
sector. Amendment 13 adopted a 20 percent cap on the ACE that a sector can hold, while
Amendment 16 removes that cap. Advice from the Groundfish PDT indicated it unlikely that any
sector could acquire a sufficient share of a stock to exercise market power of the rest of the
fishery. The Council ultimately decided that the flexibility and efficiency provided to sectors
would be improved without a cap on ACE. Further, sectors do not technically “own” ACE, nor do
individual permits. The ACE is based on the PSCs of member permits. For these reasons, this
action does not include specific provisions to limit sector ACE.
Both the allocation between the commercial and recreational components and the PSC allocations
can be expected to promote conservation. The commercial/recreational allocation will make it
easier in the future to develop measures for the appropriate component in order to control fishing
mortality. Without the allocation, measures have treated each component the same, leading to
criticism that a component had to pay for excessive fishing pressure by the other component. The
PSCs facilitate the application of quotas through sector management, which is expected to lead to
a more precise control of harvests.
Additional allocation decisions may occur as a result of the implementation of ACLs. The ACL
process requires the Council to allocate the available catch to various fisheries that catch
groundfish. These decisions are effectively allocation decisions – they determine what can be
caught before AMs are triggered. There is some guidance in this amendment that indicates recent
catch history will be a key element in making these decisions, but until the actual ACLs are
specified in a separate action it is not possible to evaluate whether the decisions are fair and
equitable.
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

837

Applicable Law
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act

With respect to DAS allocations, this amendment reduces fishing privileges for all commercial
limited access DAS permit holders by the same percentage The reduction was calculated (through
the use of an analytic model) to be the amount necessary to achieve mortality targets and is thus
expected to promote conservation.
Conservation and management measures shall, where practicable consider efficiency in the
utilization of fishery resources; except that no such measure shall have economic allocation as its
sole purpose.
The proposed management program relies on two systems to control fishing mortality in the
commercial fishery: effort controls that rely primarily on restrictions in time fishing (days-at-sea,
or DAS) and sector management. In the first, there are additional measures included that tend to
reduce economic efficiency of vessels, but they are generally required for sound management
reasons. For example, restrictions on minimum mesh size reduce catches, but benefit the resource
by targeting larger fish that have had an opportunity to spawn. Closed areas also reduce efficiency
by preventing fishermen from fishing in high catch areas, but provide benefits to both habitat
protection and spawning aggregations of fish. In sector management, the sectors have been
designed with the maximum allowable flexibility so that they may draft fishing plans that are as
efficient and profitable as possible. Certain restrictions for sectors still exist that may slightly
reduce efficiency, but all have critical conservation and management goals. These include rolling
closures that were designed to protect spawning fish and increased administrative requirements.
Some of the measures in this amendment will improve economic efficiency, thus mitigating the
effects of some of the measures necessary for conservation. Clearly, sectors are being
implemented as an attempt to increase efficiency over DAS fishing. Some common pool
management measures also mitigate economic effects of fishing restrictions in this action. For
example, the decrease in the minimum size for haddock will allow more fish to be kept and sold,
and the removal of the limit on hooks for the recreational fishery as well as increased trip limits
for the handgear fleet will allow for more efficient fishing. Specific proposals that address
economic concerns include the DAS leasing and DAS transfer provision of the amendment.
These measures allow for fishermen to consolidate DAS on fewer vessels, making each active
fishing vessel more economically viable.
Conservation and management measures shall take into account and allow for variations among,
and contingencies in, fisheries, fishery resources, and catches.
The measures allow for the use of different gear, vessel size, and fishing practices. While there
are many restrictions included, especially for the common pool, with respect to minimum mesh
size, quantity of gear, closed areas, and fishing time, there are no restrictions preventing the use
of an authorized gear in an open area, and few restrictions on the deployment of that gear. The
proposed action includes programs designed to encourage innovation in fishing practices in order
to target healthy stocks. These programs include the sector provisions, special access programs,
and the use of Category B DAS.
The sector program in particular takes into account variations in fishing practices. Sector vessels
will be exempt from DAS limits, trip limits, some closed areas, and can request exemptions from
other elements of the management program. This will increase the ability of fishermen to adjust
fishing practices to take into account local conditions.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

838

Applicable Law
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act

Conservation and management measures shall, where practicable, minimize costs and avoid
unnecessary duplication.
The Council considered the costs and benefits of a range of alternatives to achieve the goals and
objectives of this FMP. It considered the costs to the industry of taking no action relative to
adopting and maintaining existing rebuilding programs. The expected benefits are greater in the
long-term if stocks are rebuilt, though it is clear there are significant short-term declines in
revenue and possible increases in costs that can be expected. Sector administration provisions
include increased reporting and monitoring requirements. These programs are expected to be
costly. While the amendment expects sector participants to bear these costs, in FY 2010 many of
the costs will be paid by taxpayers through NMFS. It is unclear how long such funding will
remain available. In any event, these costs are believed essential to the effective transition fro the
effort control system to the quota management system of sectors.
Some management alternatives were not selected in part because of concerns over the costs and
burdens of administering the program. One hundred percent monitoring coverage are two
examples of management measures whose costs were deemed to outweigh the benefits expected.
The management program does not duplicate other regulatory efforts. Management of
multispecies in federal waters is not subject to coordinated regulation by any other management
body. Absent Council action, a coordinated rebuilding effort to restore the health of the
overfished stocks would not occur.
Conservation and management measures shall, consistent with the conservation requirements of
this Act (including the prevention of overfishing and rebuilding of overfished stocks), take into
account the importance of fishery resources to fishing communities in order to (A) provide for the
sustained participation of such communities, and (B) to the extent practicable, minimize adverse
impacts on such communities.
Consistent with the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act to prevent overfishing and rebuild
overfished stocks, the proposed action will restrict fishing activity through the imposition of
additional restrictions on fishing time, possession limits, allowable catches, and other measures.
Analyses of the impacts of these measures show that landings and revenues are likely to decline
for many participants in the upcoming years of the rebuilding program. In the short term, these
declines will probably have negative impacts on fishing communities throughout the region, but
particularly on those ports that rely heavily on groundfish. These declines are unavoidable given
the m-S Act requirements to rebuild overfished stocks. The need to control fishing mortality
means that catches cannot be as high as would likely occur with less stringent management
measures.
There are measures are included that are designed to foster continued participation. As previously
discussed, the sector allocation, special access program, and Category B DAS programs are
designed to provide avenues for fishermen to continue to participate while stocks rebuild. Sector
allocation programs are believed by many to provide an opportunity for local communities to
maintain a presence on the fishery. Whether this will occur is subject to some debate, as there are
some who believe that sectors will lead to fewer fishing vessels and as a result less vibrant fishing
communities. What is clear, however, is that absent sectors, the ability of the industry to remain
profitable under the needed DAS restrictions would be in question (see section 7.5.1.3.1) because
the DAS allocations are so restrictive that many vessels would not remain in business.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

839

Applicable Law
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act

Conservation and management measures shall, to the extent practicable, (A) minimize bycatch
and (B) to the extent bycatch cannot be avoided, minimize the mortality of such bycatch.
Numerous elements of this action are designed to reduce bycatch. For common pool (non-sector)
vessels, many trip limits have been increased (trip limits are a key reason for regulatory discards).
Restricted gear areas, and the use of selective gears in special management programs, are adopted
in order to reduce catches of stocks that continue to have low trip limits. The minimum size of
haddock had been reduced to 18 inches, which should reduce discards of fish between that size
and the 19 inch minimum size in place prior to this action. While discards may increase because
landing windowpane flounder, ocean pout, Atlantic wolffish, and SNE/MA winter flounder is
prohibited, these restrictions were adopted to discourage targeting and contribute to rebuilding
objectives. Sector administration provisions could also reduce bycatch by eliminating trip limits
for sector vessels. There is some evidence that this may have occurred with one of the existing
sectors (see section 6.2.4.2.2).
Conservation and management measures shall, to the extent practicable, promote safety of
human life at sea.
The primary controls on fishing mortality used in this plan are sector management and limitations
on the number of DAS that vessels can fish. The design of sectors leaves it up to individual
fishermen and sector managers to determine when and where they will fish throughout the year.
There are limitless arrangements that could be devised through sectors in case a vessel or a
certain segment of the fishery should become economically unviable. The flexibility in designing
these arrangements should help mitigate any safety concerns associated with the relatively low
TACs implemented in this action. Similarly, for vessels in the common pool, DAS can be used at
any time, subject to limitations imposed by closed areas. Reductions in DAS could affect vessel
safety if vessels are unable to remain economically viable. Comments received suggested that
vessel maintenance and safety equipment are often two major costs that are trimmed when vessel
revenues decline. Vessel revenues are expected to decline for many vessels under the proposed
action. If operators are unable to afford maintenance or safety equipment, there could be an
increased number of accidents. While reduced fishing time means that vessels are on the water for
less time and subject to fewer hazards, it is not clear that this will compensate for the lack of
spending on safety and maintenance equipment. Reduced time fishing could also lead to less
experience for crew and vessel captains, which could adversely affect safety.
The proposed action, however, does include some measures that may help mitigate these
problems. Both DAS leasing and the DAS transfer provision will help some vessels obtain more
DAS so that they can remain profitable (and an analogous situation exists with the ACE transfer
provision for sectors). While DAS are being reduced, for some areas the action includes some
measures to make each DAS more profitable as discussed under National Standard 5 above.

9.1.2 Other M-SFCMA requirements
Section 303 (a) of FCMA contains required provisions for FMPs. This section will be completed
when the Proposed Action is submitted in the final amendment and EIS.
(1)

contain the conservation and management measures, applicable to foreign fishing and
fishing by vessels of the United States, which are-- (A) necessary and appropriate for the
conservation and management of the fishery to prevent overfishing and rebuild
overfished stocks, and to protect, restore, and promote the long-term health and stability
of the fishery; (B) described in this subsection or subsection (b), or both; and (C)
consistent with the National Standards, the other provisions of this Act, regulations

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

840

Applicable Law
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act

implementing recommendations by international organizations in which the United States
participates (including but not limited to closed areas, quotas, and size limits), and any
other applicable law;
Foreign fishing is not allowed under this management plan or this action and so specific measures
are not included that specify and control allowable foreign catch. The measures in this
management plan are designed to prevent overfishing and rebuild overfished stocks. There are no
international agreements that are germane to multispecies management (the U.S./Canada resource
Sharing Understanding, implemented through Amendment 13, is not considered an international
agreement).
(2)

contain a description of the fishery, including, but not limited to, the number of vessels
involved, the type and quantity of fishing gear used, the species of fish involved and their
location, the cost likely to be incurred in management, actual and potential revenues
from the fishery, any recreational interest in the fishery, and the nature and extent of
foreign fishing and Indian treaty fishing rights, if any;

Amendment 13 (NEFMC 2003) included a thorough description of the multispecies fishery from
1994 through 2001, including the gears used, number of vessels, landings and revenues, and
effort used in the fishery. Amendment 16 updates this information for the period 2001 through
2008. Information on the commercial harvesting sector can be found in section 6.2.3 Information
on the recreational harvesting sector can be found in section 6.2.5. Short overviews of the gear
used in the fishery, and the impacts of those gear on habitat, are in section 6.1.6.
(3)

assess and specify the present and probable future condition of, and the maximum
sustainable yield and optimum yield from, the fishery, and include a summary of the
information utilized in making such specification;

The present biological status of the fishery is described in section 6.1.8. Likely future conditions
of the resource are described in section 7.2.1. The maximum sustainable yield and optimum yield
for the fishery are described in section 4.1.1.
(4)

assess and specify-- (A) the capacity and the extent to which fishing vessels of the United
States, on an annual basis, will harvest the optimum yield specified under paragraph (3);
(B) the portion of such optimum yield which, on an annual basis, will not be harvested by
fishing vessels of the United States and can be made available for foreign fishing; and
(C) the capacity and extent to which United States fish processors, on an annual basis,
will process that portion of such optimum yield that will be harvested by fishing vessels of
the United States;

U.S. fishing vessels are capable of, and expected to, harvest the optimum yield from this fishery
as specified in Amendment 16. U.S. processors are also expected to process the harvest of U.S.
fishing vessels. None of the optimum yield from this fishery can be made available to foreign
fishing.
(5)

specify the pertinent data which shall be submitted to the Secretary with respect to
commercial, recreational, and charter fishing in the fishery, including, but not limited to,
information regarding the type and quantity of fishing gear used, catch by species in
numbers of fish or weight thereof, areas in which fishing was engaged in, time of fishing,
number of hauls, and the estimated processing capacity of, and the actual processing
capacity utilized by, United States fish processors;

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

841

Applicable Law
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act

Current reporting requirements for this fishery have been in effect since 1994 and were originally
specified in Amendment 5. The requirements include Vessel Trip Reports (VTRs) that are
submitted by each fishing vessel. Dealers are also required to submit reports on the purchases of
regulated groundfish from permitted vessels. Current reporting requirements are detailed in 50
CFR 648.7. This action modifies several reporting requirements (see sections 4.2.3.5.1 and 4.2.4).
(6)

consider and provide for temporary adjustments, after consultation with the Coast Guard
and persons utilizing the fishery, regarding access to the fishery for vessels otherwise
prevented from harvesting because of weather or other ocean conditions affecting the
safe conduct of the fishery; except that the adjustment shall not adversely affect
conservation efforts in other fisheries or discriminate among participants in the affected
fishery;

The Proposed Action continues to allow the carry-over of a small number of DAS from one
fishing year to the next. If a fisherman is unable to use all of his DAS because of weather or other
conditions, this measure allows his available fishing time to be used in the subsequent fishing
year. This practice does not require consultation with the Coast Guard.
The Proposed Action also adopts a measure that will allow sectors to carry-forward a small
amount of ACE into the next fishing year. This will help sectors react should adverse weather
interfere with harvesting the entire ACE before the end of the year. This practice does not require
consultation with the Coast Guard.
(7)

describe and identify essential fish habitat for the fishery based on the guidelines
established by the Secretary under section 305(b)(1)(A), minimize to the extent
practicable adverse effects on such habitat caused by fishing, and identify other actions
to encourage the conservation and enhancement of such habitat;

Essential fish habitat was defined in an earlier action. This action does not change those
designations, except that it designates EFH for Atlantic wolffish which was previously not part of
the management unit (see section 4.2.2.2).
(8)

in the case of a fishery management plan that, after January 1, 1991, is submitted to the
Secretary for review under section 304(a) (including any plan for which an amendment is
submitted to the Secretary for such review) or is prepared by the Secretary, assess and
specify the nature and extent of scientific data which is needed for effective
implementation of the plan;

Scientific and research needs are identified in section 8.0.
(9)

include a fishery impact statement for the plan or amendment (in the case of a plan or
amendment thereto submitted to or prepared by the Secretary after October 1, 1990)
which shall assess, specify, and describe the likely effects, if any, of the conservation and
management measures on-- (A) participants in the fisheries and fishing communities
affected by the plan or amendment; and (B) participants in the fisheries conducted in
adjacent areas under the authority of another Council, after consultation with such
Council and representatives of those participants;

Impacts of Amendment 16 on fishing communities directly affected by this action can be found in
section 7.6. Possible impacts on fisheries conduced in adjacent areas are described in section 7.7.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

842

Applicable Law
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act

(10)

specify objective and measurable criteria for identifying when the fishery to which the
plan applies is overfished (with an analysis of how the criteria were determined and the
relationship of the criteria to the reproductive potential of stocks of fish in that fishery)
and, in the case of a fishery which the Council or the Secretary has determined is
approaching an overfished condition or is overfished, contain conservation and
management measures to prevent overfishing or end overfishing and rebuild the fishery;

Objective and measurable criteria for determining when the fishery is overfished, including an
analysis of how the criteria were determined, can be found in Amendment 13 (NEFMC 2004),
section 3.1.
(11)
establish a standardized reporting methodology to assess the amount and type of bycatch
occurring in the fishery, and include conservation and management measures that, to the
extent practicable and in the following priority-- (A) minimize bycatch; and (B) minimize
the mortality of bycatch which cannot be avoided;
A Standardized Bycatch Reporting Methodology omnibus amendment was adopted by the
Council in June 2007. That methodology applies to this amendment. The proposed action
includes a number of measures that are designed to minimize bycatch and associated mortality.
These include increases in some trip limits that apply to common-pool vessels (section 4.3.2.1),
requirements to use selective gears to reduce catches of stocks with low trip limits (sections
4.3.2.1, 4.2.7.3, 4.2.7.4, 4.2.7.6, 4.3.2.1), decreases in the haddock minimum size (section
4.3.2.3), and implementation of additional sectors and the exemption of those sectors from
measures that tend to cause regulatory discards (sections 4.3.6 and 4.2.3.9).
(12)

assess the type and amount of fish caught and released alive during recreational fishing
under catch and release fishery management programs and the mortality of such fish,
and include conservation and management measures that, to the extent practicable,
minimize mortality and ensure the extended survival of such fish;

This management plan does not include a catch and release recreational fishery management
program and thus does not address this requirement.
(13)

include a description of the commercial, recreational, and charter fishing sectors which
participate in the fishery and, to the extent practicable, quantify trends in landings of the
managed fishery resource by the commercial, recreational, and charter fishing sectors;

As noted above, the description of the commercial, recreational, and charter fishing sectors was
updated in this document, sections 6.2.3 and 6.2.5.
(14)

to the extent that rebuilding plans or other conservation and management measures
which reduce the overall harvest in a fishery are necessary, allocate any harvest
restrictions or recovery benefits fairly and equitably among the commercial,
recreational, and charter fishing sectors in the fishery.

Proposed management measures restrict harvest for all sectors of the fishery. The principal stock
harvested by both the commercial and recreational sectors is GOM cod. This action establishes an
allocation between these components and the mortality reductions targeted in this action are
calculated after considering this distribution and recent catch composition (section 5.3.3.3).
Recovery benefits have been allocated equitably, most notably for haddock: minimum size was
reduced for both commercial and recreational catches, there remains no bag limit on recreational
catch, and special access programs were enhanced for the commercial fleet.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

843

Applicable Law
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act

(15)

Establish a mechanism for specifying annual catch limits in the plan (including a
multiyear plan), implementing regulations, or annual specifications, at a level such that
overfishing does not occur in the fishery, including measures to ensure accountability.

Annual Catch Limits and Accountability Measures for both the commercial and recreational
fisheries are adopted in this action. A detailed description of the ACL process can be found in
section 4.2.1. AMs are described in section 4.3.7.

9.1.3 EFH Assessment
This essential fish habitat (EFH) assessment is provided pursuant to 50 CFR 600.920(e) of the
EFH Final Rule to initiate EFH consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service.

9.1.3.1 Description of Action
The purpose of the Amendment 16 (Northeast Multispecies FMP) Proposed Action is to adopt
management measures that are necessary to implement the most recent revisions to the MSFCMA
including Annual Catch Limits and Accountability Measures, and to end overfishing on all
Northeast groundfish stocks. This amendment also greatly expands and further defines the sector
management program implemented in Amendment 13. Modifications are also proposed to many
measures adopted by previous management actions so that the benefits to groundfish stocks are
realized.
In general, the activity described by this Proposed Action, fishing for groundfish species occurs
off the New England and Mid-Atlantic coasts within the U.S. EEZ. Thus, the range of this
activity occurs across the designated EFH of all Council-managed species (see Amendment 11 to
the Northeast Multispecies FMP for a list of species for which EFH was designated, the maps of
the distribution of EFH, and descriptions of the characteristics that comprise the EFH). EFH
designated for species managed under the Secretarial Highly Migratory Species FMPs are not
affected by this action, nor is any EFH designated for species managed by the South Atlantic
Council as all of the relevant species are pelagic and not directly affected by benthic habitat
impacts.
The Proposed Action is described in section 4.0. For a summary of the impacts of the Proposed
Action on EFH, refer to Table 204 in the Habitat Impacts of the Proposed Action section 7.4.1.4.
The Proposed Action includes the following general measures:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Updates to status determination criteria
Implementation of Annual Catch Limits and Accountability Measures for all stocks
Addition of Atlantic wolffish to the management unit
Fishery program administration changes, including expanded requirements for sectors
Commercial fishing measures
Recreational fishing measures
Measures applicable to special management programs
Establishment of 17 additional sectors in addition to reauthorization of the two existing
sectors
Measures to modify the DAS leasing and DAS transfer programs
Requirements for vessel reporting systems
Changes to the haddock trip limit

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

844

Applicable Law
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act

9.1.3.2 Potential Adverse Impacts of the Action on EFH
A list of specific measures and a summary of the habitat impacts of the proposed measures is
found in section 7.4.1. The following proposed measures have the potential to affect EFH:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Allocation of groundfish to the commercial and recreational fishing industries
Removal of the DAS transfer tax
Removal of cap on DAS leasing and allowing CPH permits to participate in the DAS
transfer program
CAII Yellowtail Flounder SAP modifications
Simultaneous possession of a limited access multispecies and scallop permit
Commercial fishery measures: 50% reduction in Category A DAS, 24 hour clock, use of
specific trawls in restricted gear areas
Implementation of additional sectors

Proposed management measures that are expected to have negative impacts are described in
Table 304, and thosewiht expected positive impacts in Table 305. Most of these measures are
difficult to assess on the basis of their impact on EFH, and therefore their impacts are speculative
at best. It is not possible at this time to assess some of the proposed measures at all (such as
implementation of additional sectors and the Category B DAS program. The only proposed
measures that would, without doubt, have a significant habitat impact are the commercial fishery
effort control measures. Implementation of a 24-hour clock, the area-specific use of bottom
trawls designed to catch fewer groundfish species that are more closely associated with the
bottom, and a 50% reduction in category A days-at-sea, will substantially reduce the amount of
disturbance associated with bottom trawling throughout the range of the fishery. Given the
overriding significance of these proposed measures, the overall impact of this action on EFH
would be positive. Other proposed measures not mentioned above are not expected to affect EFH
as they are either administrative in nature or are expected to have neutral or no habitat impacts
(see section 7.4.1).

9.1.3.3 Proposed Measures to Avoid, Minimize, or Mitigate Adverse Impacts of
This Action
None of the management measures proposed in this action would have any adverse habitat
impacts that more than minimal and, overall, the net habitat effect of this action would be
positive. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required. The adverse EFH impacts of the
multispecies trawl fishery, as it existed in 2003, were evaluated in Amendment 13 to the FMP
(NEFMC 2003) and minimized by the implementation of seven habitat closed areas on Georges
Bank and in the Gulf of Maine. As a result of this action, the adverse habitat impacts of this
fishery will continue to be minimized to the extent practicable, as required by the MSA and the
EFH regulations [50 CFR Part 600.815(a)(2)(ii)].

9.1.3.4 Conclusions
Because there are no adverse impacts associated with this action, no EFH consultation is required.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

845

Applicable Law
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act

Measures with Potential Negative Effects on EFH
Table 304 – Expected Negative Habitat Impacts of Proposed Action Relative to No Action
Alternative
Removal of cap on DAS
leasing and allowing CPH
permits to participate in the
DAS transfer program

0/-

CAII Yellowtail Flounder SAP
modifications

0/-

Simultaneous possession of a
limited access multispecies
and scallop permit

0/-

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

846

Could lead to consolidation of
groundfish permits onto fewer
vessels. This is unlikely to
reduce groundfish fishing
effort, but may reduce effort in
other fisheries. There may be
some reduced fishing impacts
in EFH as a result, but this is
difficult to evaluate this with
certainty.
Some vessels (i.e., non-sector
vessels) may be using
Category B DAS that they
would otherwise not have
used, resulting in some net
increase in trawl fishing effort.
The magnitude of the impact,
however, cannot be
determined because it is
uncertain how many vessels
would or could participate in
this program.
If the former groundfish vessel
participates in other fisheries
after the multispecies permit is
transferred, and this results in
effort increases in other
fisheries that use mobile
bottom tending gears (e.g.
summer flounder), then there
may be a consequent negative
effect on habitats designated
EFH that overlap with those
fisheries. The potential for,
and likely magnitude of, this
outcome is unknown at this
time.

Applicable Law
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act

Measures with Potential Positive Effects on EFH
Table 305 – Expected Positive Habitat Impacts of Proposed Action Relative to No Action
Alternative
Proposed Measure

Expected Relative Habitat
Impacts

Allocation of groundfish to the
commercial and recreational
fishing industries

Removal of the DAS transfer
tax

0/+

+/0

Commercial fishery effort
control measures: 24 hour
clock, restricted gear areas

Implementation of additional
sectors

+/0

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

847

Rationale
May alter the distribution of
fishing effort, potentially
shifting effort from commercial
fisheries that are more likely to
have an adverse effect on
habitats (e.g. commercial
trawling) to recreational
fisheries with less overall
impact on habitats (e.g.
recreational hook/line). Any
such shift will likely be very
small, as the proposed
allocation estimates are based
on historical averages.
Combined changes are
expected to have minimal
effect. Removing the DAS
transfer tax could lead to
consolidation of groundfish
permits onto fewer vessels.
This is unlikely to reduce
groundfish fishing effort, but
may reduce effort in other
fisheries as duplicate permits
are cancelled when a transfer
takes place. It is difficult to
evaluate this with certainty.
Gears will likely have a
reduced impact on the seabed
since gears are required to
minimize interactions with
species that tend to remain
close to the seabed floor.
Additionally, the dramatic
decrease in overall DAS
allocations will translate to a
reduction in fishing effort and
will have benefits to habitats
designated as EFH throughout
the range of the fishery.
Sector implementation is
administrative. Operations
plans must describe fishing
practices and impacts on EFH.
Addition of sectors could lead
to reductions in effort as
sectors fish more efficiently
which would be expected to
benefit EFH.

Applicable Law
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act

9.1.4 Skate Baseline Review
Federal regulations at 50 CFR 648.320(c) specify provisions for evaluating the impacts of FMPs
on the skate fishery as a result of changes in several FMPs, including the Northeast Multispecies
FMP. The regulatory requirement is that if an action is initiated that may make less restrictive one
or more of the identified baseline measures such that the change will have an effect on the overall
mortality for a species of skates subject to a formal rebuilding program, the skate PDT will
evaluate the impacts of the proposed changes on rebuilding skate populations and develop
management measures to mitigate the impacts if the changes to the baseline measures on
rebuilding skates.
Amendment 3 to the Skate FMP was approved by the Council in April, 2009 and is undergoing
review. That amendment adopts additional measures to rebuild overfished skate stocks and adopts
ACLs and AMs for the skate fishery. It also removes the baseline review requirement. Since that
action has not yet been approved by NMFS, the regulatory requirement to conduct a baseline
review technically remains in effect. The following discussion draws from the fishery impacts
discussion in section 7.7.7 in place of a review by the skate PDT.
With respect to the Northeast Multispecies FMP, there are three baseline measures that must be
evaluated:
(i) NE Multispecies year-round closed areas;
(ii) NE Multispecies DAS restrictions;
(iii) Gillnet gear restrictions;
The Proposed Action does not modify the year-round closed areas, but does modify access to the
CAII yellowtail flounder SAP and the CAI Hook Gear Haddock SAP. Both of these SAPs are
expanded in time and/or area, increasing access to the closed areas. The changes to the CAII
yellowtail flounder SAP allow the use of selective gear to target haddock during years the SAP is
not open for targeting yellowtail flounder. These gears are designed to reduce catches of bottomdwelling species such as skates, but in practice they have had mixed results. Since this program
will open the area more frequently than before, there is likely to be some increases in skate catch
from the area.

This action does not increase DAS allocations and does not remove requirements to use DAS
when required by another management plan, so the baseline review is not triggered for this
measure. For vessels that choose to join sectors, the action does remove the requirement that
multispecies DAS be used to target groundfish, but it does not modify the requirement that the
DAS be used if required to target other species. With respect to targeting groundfish, analyses in
this document indicate that sectors are likely to lead to the use of fewer fishing DAS than prior
than if the action is not adopted. Coupled with the overall reduction in DAS for vessels that do
not choose to join sectors, overall groundfish fishing effort is expected to decline as a result of
this action.
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

848

Applicable Law
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

This action also proposes to adopt a pilot program to facilitate targeting GOM haddock with sink
gillnets. This proposal does not allow the use of Category B DAS, so fishing effort will not
increase, particularly in light of the overall DAS reductions and 24 –hour clock.
The changes expected to occur are unlikely to create a need for skate catch control measures in
addition to those adopted by Amendment 3 to the Skate FMP.

9.2

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

NEPA provides a mechanism for identifying and evaluating the full spectrum of environmental
issues associated with federal actions, and for considering a reasonable range of alternatives to
avoid or minimize adverse environmental impacts. This document is designed to meet the
requirements of both the M-S Act and NEPA. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) has
issued regulations specifying the requirements for NEPA documents (40 CFR 1500 – 1508) and
NOAA’s agency policy and procedures for NEPA are found in NOAA Administrative Order 2166.. All of those requirements are addressed in this document, as referenced below.
The required elements of an Environmental Impact Statement Assessment (EIS) are specified in
40 CFR 1508.9(b) and NAO 216-6 Section 5.04b.1. They are included in this document as
follows:
•
•
•
•

The need for this action is described in section 3.2;
The alternatives that were considered are described in sections 4.0);
The environmental impacts of the Proposed Action are described in section 7.0;
The agencies and persons consulted on this action are listed in section 9.2.5.

This document includes the following additional sections that are based on requirements for an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

An Executive Summary can be found in section 1.0.
A table of contents can be found in section 2.0.
Background and purpose are described in section 3.0.
A summary of the document can be found in section 1.0.
A brief description of the affected environment is in section 6.0.
Cumulative impacts of the alternatives are described in section 7.8.
A list of preparers is in section 9.2.1.
The index is in section 10.3.

9.2.1 Scoping Summary
The Council announced its intent to prepare Amendment 16 and an Environmental Impact
Statement (SEIS) on November 6, 2006 (71 Federal Register 64941). The scoping period
extended from that date until December 29, 2006. A summary of the scoping process, comments,
and responses to those comments is provided in section 3.3 and is not repeated here.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

849

Applicable Law
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

9.2.2 Areas of Controversy
Amendment 16 was developed under close scrutiny, and there were mixed public reactions to the
measures herein, especially on the topics of sector development, calculation of PSCs, and ACL
implementation. Approximately 10,000 written comments were received during the comment
period that offered various concerns with the amendment measures. Responses to those
comments are in Appendix V. In addition to the public comments, one Council member
submitted a minority report in response to the Council’s decisions on PSC calculation and the
commercial/recreational allocation. That report, along with the Executive Committee’s response,
is included in the amendment package.
The major areas of controversy are related to the expansion of the sector management program
and the calculation of potential sector contributions. The expansion of sectors is viewed with
trepidation by many industry participants as they fear it may lead to rapid consolidation of the
fishery. Many other interests, however, were strong supporters of sectors as a desirable alternative
to the effort control system. Fishermen also have divergent opinions on the proposed action for
calculating PSCs for permits. While the majority of public comments supported the selected
alternative it was not universally accepted, and the use of a separate allocation method for GB
cod also is viewed as controversial as evidenced by the minority report submitted by a council
member.
The required implementation of ACLs also drew considerable discussion. This tended to focus on
the details of the proposed process since the legal requirement to implement ACLs is clearcut and
as a result there was little disagreement over the concept of implementing the measure. But there
was disagreement over the exact process used for implementing ACLs as proposed in this action.

9.2.3 Document Distribution
The draft document is available on the NEFMC web page, www.nefmc.org. Copies were
provided to all Council members. Announcements of the documents availability will be made in
the Federal Register and to the interested parties’ mailing list. In addition, copies were distributed
to the following:
US Environmental Protection Agency
EIS Filing Section
Office of Federal Activities
Ariel Rios Building (South Oval Lobby)
Mail Code 2252-A
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W.
Washington, DC 20460
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), Region 1
Betsy Higgins
One Congress Street, 11th Floor
Boston, MA 02203
higgins.elizabeth@epa.gov
USEPA, Region 2
Grace Musumeci
290 Broadway, 25th Floor
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

850

Applicable Law
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

New York, NY 10007
212.637.3738
musumeci.grace@epa.gov
USEPA, Region 3
Bill Arguto
1650 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19106
215.814.3367
arguto.william@epa.gov
USEPA, Region 4
Chris Hoberg
61 Forsyth Street
Atlanta, GA 30303
404.562.9611
chris.hoberg@epa.gpv
District Commander
First Coast Guard District
408 Atlantic Avenue
Boston, MA 02210
6178.223.8480
William Gibbons-Fly, Director
Office of Marine Conservation
Department of State
2201 "C" Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20520
Timothy J. Ragan, Ph.D.
Acting Executive Director
Marine Mammal Commission
4340 East-West Highway
Bethesda, MD 20814
Willie R. Taylor
Office of Environmental Affairs
Department of Interior
1849 "C" Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20520
202.208.3100

9.2.4 List of Preparers
The following personnel participated in the preparation of this EIS.
Amy Van Atten, National Marine Fisheries Service
Jennifer Anderson, National Marine Fisheries Service
Douglas Christel, National Marine Fisheries Service
Steven Correia, Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

851

Applicable Law
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

Chad Demarest, New England Fishery Management Council
Mark Grant, National Marine Fisheries Service
David Gouveia, National Marine Fisheries Service
Phil Haring, New England Fishery Management Council
Anne Hawkins, New England Fishery Management Council
Dan Holland, Gulf of Maine Research Institute
Kohl Kanwit, Maine Department of Marine Resources
Thomas Nies, New England Fishery Management Council
Paul Nitchske, National Marine Fisheries Service
Joan O’Leary, New England Fishery Management Council
Paul Parker, Groundfish Advisory Panel Chair
Patrick Scida, National Marine Fisheries Service
Lori Steele, New England Fishery Management Council
Dr. David Stevenson, National Marine Fisheries Service
Dr. Eric Thunberg, National Marine Fisheries Service
John Walden, National Marine Fisheries Service
Thomas Warren, National Marine Fisheries Service

9.2.5 Agencies Consulted
The following agencies were consulted in the preparation of this document:
Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council
New England Fishery Management Council, which includes representatives from the
following additional organizations:
Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection
Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management
Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries
New Hampshire Fish and Game
Maine Department of Marine Resources
National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA, Department of Commerce
United States Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security

9.2.6 Opportunity for Public Comment
The Proposed Action was developed during the period November 2006 through September 2009
and was discussed at the following meetings. Opportunities for public comment were provided at
Advisory Panel, Committee, and Council meetings. There are limited opportunities to comment at
PDT meetings and conference calls. In addition, a public comment period was held from April 24
through June 8, 2009. Comments were accepted via letter, facsimile, and email during that period
(see Appendix VI).

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

852

Applicable Law
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

Table 306 – List of public meetings
Date

Meeting Type

Location

Council Meeting

Holiday Inn, Peabody, MA

11/6/2006

Oversight Committee

Holiday Inn, Peabody, MA

11/27/2006

Groundfish A16 Scoping Hearing

Holiday Inn, Ellsworth, ME

11/28/2006

Groundfish A16 Scoping Hearing

Eastland Park Hotel, Portland, ME

11/29/2006

Groundfish A16 Scoping Hearing

Urban Forestry Ctr., Portsmouth, NH

11/30/2006

Groundfish A16 Scoping Hearing

MA DMF, Gloucester, MA

12/5/2006

Groundfish A16 Scoping Hearing

Best Western East End, Riverhead,
NY

12/7/2006

Groundfish A16 Scoping Hearing

Holiday Inn Express, Fairhaven, MA

12/12/2006

Groundfish A16 Scoping Hearing

Skyline Hotel, New York, NY

1/18/2007

Oversight Committee

Holiday Inn, Mansfield, Mansfield, MA

1/11/2004

PDT conference call

2/6-2/8/07

Council Meeting

Sheraton Harborside, Portsmouth, NH

PDT Meeting

Falmouth Tech Park, Falmouth, MA

Council Meeting

Mystic Hilton, Mystic, CT

4/20/2007

Oversight Committee

Holiday Inn, Peabody, MA

5/29/2007

Advisory Panel

Holiday Inn, Mansfield, Mansfield, MA

5/31/2007

Oversight Committee (joint with
Monkfish)

Providence Biltmore, Providence, RI

Council Meeting

Eastland Park Hotel, Portland, ME

2006
9/26-9/28/2006

2007

3/7/2007
4/10-4/12/07

6/19-6/21/07
6/26/2007

PDT conference call

7/25/2007

PDT Meeting

Holiday Inn, Mansfield, Mansfield, MA

8/1/2007

Oversight Committee

Holiday Inn, Peabody, MA

8/21/2007

PDT conference call

9/5/2007

Oversight Committee

Holiday Inn, Peabody, MA

Council

Radisson Hotel, Plymouth, MA

10/2/2007

PDT

MA Audubon, Newburyport, MA

10/16/2007

Oversight Committee

Holiday Inn, Peabody, MA

10/22/2007

PDT

Holiday Inn, Mansfield, Mansfield, MA

Council Meeting

Hotel Viking, Newport, MA

PDT

Holiday Inn, Mansfield, Mansfield, MA

9/18-9/19/07

11/6-11/7/07
12/6/2007

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

853

Applicable Law
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
Date

Meeting Type

Location

12/12-12/13/07

Oversight Committee

Holiday Inn, Peabody, MA

1/9/2008

PDT

Starboard Galley, Newburyport, MA

1/17/07-8

Oversight Committee

Holiday Inn, Peabody, MA

1/24/2008

Council Meeting

Sheraton Ferncroft, Danvers, MA

1/22/2008

PDT conference call

2/11/2008

Oversight Committee

Courtyard by Marriot, Portsmouth, NH

Council Meeting

Sheraton Harborside, Portsmouth, NH

3/19/2008

PDT Meeting

Holiday Inn, Mansfield, MA

3/27/2008

Oversight Committee

Holiday Inn by the Bay, Portland, ME

4/8/2008

PDT Meeting

Holiday Inn, Mansfield, MA

Council Meeting

Providence Biltmore, Providence, RI

5/13/2008

Oversight Committee

Holiday Inn, Peabody, MA

5/15/2008

PDT conference call

5/16/2008

PDT conference call

5/20/2008

Recreational Advisory Panel

Holiday Inn, Peabody, MA

5/27/2008

Advisory Panel

Holiday Inn, Peabody, MA

6/2/2008

Oversight Committee

Holiday Inn by the Bay, Portland, ME

Council Meeting

Holiday Inn by the Bay, Portland, ME

2008

2/12/082/14/08

4/15-4/17/08

6/3-6/5/08
7/1/2008

PDT conference call

7/17/2008

Oversight Committee

Holiday Inn, Peabody, MA

8/13/2008

PDT Meeting

MA Audubon, Newburyport, MA

8/21/2008

PDT conference call

8/26/2008

Oversight Committee

Holiday Inn, Peabody, MA

9/3-9/4/08

Council Meeting

Providence Biltmore, Providence, RI

9/11/2008

PDT conference call

9/16/2008

Advisory Panel

Sheraton Ferncroft, Danvers, MA

9/17/2008

Recreational Advisory Panel

Sheraton Ferncroft, Danvers, MA

9/29/2008

Oversight Committee

Holiday Inn, Peabody, MA

10/15/2008

PDT conference call

10/22/2008

PDT conference call

10/30/2008

Oversight Committee

Sheraton Harborside, Portsmouth, NH

Council Meeting

Sheraton Ferncroft, Danvers, MA

11/18-1/20/08

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

854

Applicable Law
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
Date

Meeting Type

Location

2009
1/5/2009

PDT conference call

1/29/2009

Oversight Committee

Holiday Inn, Mansfield, MA

2/9-2/11/09

Council Meeting

Sheraton Harborside, Portsmouth, NH

4/7-4/9/09

Council Meeting

Mystic Hilton, Mystic, CT

5/26/2009

Advisory Panel

Sheraton Colonial, Wakefield, MA

5/27/2009

Recreational Advisory Panel

Sheraton Colonial, Wakefield, MA

6/4/2009

PDT

Holiday Inn, Mansfield, MA

6/17/2009

Oversight Committee

Holiday Inn, Mansfield, MA

Council Meeting

Holiday Inn by the Bay, Portland, ME

6/22-6/25/09

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

855

Applicable Law
Endangered Species Act

9.3

Endangered Species Act

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires federal agencies conducting, authorizing or
funding activities that affect threatened or endangered species to ensure that those effects do not
jeopardize the continued existence of listed species. The NEFMC has concluded, at this writing,
that the proposed action and the prosecution of the multispecies fishery are not likely to
jeopardize any ESA-listed species or alter or modify any critical habitat. NMFS has already
concurred on that action. The Council does acknowledge that endangered and threatened species
may be affected by the measures proposed, but impacts should be minimal especially when seen
in light of the large reductions in fishing effort being implemented.
For further information on the potential impacts of the fishery and the proposed management
action on listed species, see section 7.2.2.2.3.4 of this document.

9.4

Marine Mammal Protection Act

For further information on the potential impacts of the fishery and the proposed management
action on marine mammals, see section 7.2.2.2.3.4 of this document. The NEFMC has reviewed
the impacts of Amendment 16 on marine mammal species and has concluded that the
management actions contained in Amendment 16 are consistent with the provisions of the
MMPA. The take of harbor porpoise under the existing FMP have been reduced to the point that
would allow the stocks to achieve optimum levels. The level of take for the remaining
odontocetes and seals that are affected by this fishery are low enough, in relation to the size of
their populations, that it has been determined that the stocks would be allowed to achieve
optimum levels. Therefore, since the mortality and serious injury that is likely to occur under the
existing FMP has been assessed relative to the PBR allowed for each species under the MMPA
and found to be below those levels, the NEFMC concludes that Amendment 16 will further
reduce effort, providing additional protection to these species.

9.5

Coastal Zone Management Act

Section 307(c)(1) of the Federal CZMA of 1972 requires that all Federal activities that directly
affect the coastal zone be consistent with approved state coastal zone management programs to
the maximum extent practicable. Pursuant to the CZMA regulations at 15 CFR 930.35, a
negative determination may be made if there are no coastal effects and the subject action: (1) Is
identified by a state agency on its list, as described in § 930.34(b), or through case-by-case
monitoring of unlisted activities; or (2) which is the same as or is similar to activities for which
consistency determinations have been prepared in the past; or (3) for which the Federal agency
undertook a thorough consistency assessment and developed initial findings on the coastal effects
of the activity. The Council has determined that the proposed action is consistent with the CZM
programs of the states and will send a notification of this determination, along with a copy of the
amendment document, to the states of Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island,
Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina for their
concurrence. Copies of the correspondence are on file at the Council office, and a list of the
specific state contacts and a copy of the letters are available upon request.
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

856

Applicable Law
Administrative Procedure Act

9.6

Administrative Procedure Act

This action was developed in compliance with the requirements of the Administrative Procedures
Act, and these requirements will continue to be followed when the proposed regulation is
published. Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act establishes procedural requirements
applicable to informal rulemaking by Federal agencies. The purpose of these requirements is to
ensure public access to the Federal rulemaking process, and to give the public adequate notice
and opportunity for comment. At this time, the Council is not requesting any abridgement of the
rulemaking process for this action.

9.7

Data Quality Act

Pursuant to NOAA guidelines implementing section 515 of Public Law 106-554 (the Data
Quality Act), all information products released to the public must first undergo a PreDissemination Review to ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of the
information (including statistical information) disseminated by or for Federal agencies. The
following section addresses these requirements.

9.7.1 Utility of Information Product
The information presented in this document is helpful to the intended users (the affected public)
by presenting a clear description of the purpose and need of the Proposed Action, the measures
proposed, and the impacts of those measures. A discussion of the reasons for selecting the
Proposed Action is included so that intended users may have a full understanding of the Proposed
Action and its implications.
Until a proposed rule is prepared and published, this document is the principal means by which
the information contained herein is available to the public. The information provided in this
document is based on the most recent available information from the relevant data sources. The
development of this document and the decisions made by the Council to propose this action are
the result of a multi-stage public process. Thus, the information pertaining to management
measures contained in this document has been improved based on comments from the public, the
fishing industry, members of the Council, and NOAA Fisheries Service.
This document is available in several formats, including printed publication, CD-ROM, and
online through the Council’s web page in PDF format. The Federal Register notice that
announces the proposed rule and the final rule and implementing regulations will be made
available in printed publication, on the website for the Northeast Regional Office, and through the
Regulations.gov website. The Federal Register documents will provide metric conversions for all
measurements.

9.7.2 Integrity of Information Product
Prior to dissemination, information associated with this action, independent of the specific
intended distribution mechanism, is safeguarded from improper access, modification, or
destruction, to a degree commensurate with the risk and magnitude of harm that could result from
the loss, misuse, or unauthorized access to or modification of such information. All electronic
information disseminated by NOAA Fisheries Service adheres to the standards set out in
Appendix III, “Security of Automated Information Resources,” of OMB Circular A-130; the
Computer Security Act; and the Government Information Security Act. All confidential
information (e.g., dealer purchase reports) is safeguarded pursuant to the Privacy Act; Titles 13,
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

857

Applicable Law
Data Quality Act

15, and 22 of the U.S. Code (confidentiality of census, business, and financial information); the
Confidentiality of Statistics provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act; and NOAA Administrative
Order 216-100, Protection of Confidential Fisheries Statistics.

9.7.3 Objectivity of Information Product
For purposes of the Pre-Dissemination Review, this document is considered to be a “Natural
Resource Plan.” Accordingly, the document adheres to the published standards of the MagnusonStevens Act; the Operational Guidelines, Fishery Management Plan Process; the Essential Fish
Habitat Guidelines; the National Standard Guidelines; and NOAA Administrative Order 216-6,
Environmental Review Procedures for Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act.
This information product uses information of known quality from sources acceptable to the
relevant scientific and technical communities. Stock status (including estimates of biomass and
fishing mortality) reported in this product are based on either assessments subject to peer-review
through the Stock Assessment Review Committee or on updates of those assessments prepared by
scientists of the Northeast Fisheries Science Center. These update assessments were reviewed by
the Groundfish Assessment Review Meeting III (GARM III; NEFSC 2008) and included
participation by independent stock assessment scientists. Landing and revenue information is
based on information collected through the Vessel Trip Report and Commercial Dealer databases.
Information on catch composition, by tow, is based on reports collected by the NOAA Fisheries
Service observer program and incorporated into the sea sampling or observer database systems.
These reports are developed using an approved, scientifically valid sampling process. In addition
to these sources, additional information is presented that has been accepted and published in peerreviewed journals or by scientific organizations. Original analyses in this document were
prepared using data from accepted sources, and the analyses have been reviewed by members of
the Groundfish Plan Development Team/Monitoring Committee.
Despite current data limitations, the conservation and management measures considered for this
action were selected based upon the best scientific information available. The analyses conducted
used information from the most recent complete calendar years, through 2007, and in some cases
includes information that was collected during t calendar year 2008. Complete data were not
available for calendar year 2008. The data used in the analyses provide the best available
information on the number of harvesters in the fishery, the catch (including landings and
discards) by those harvesters, the sales and revenue of those landings to dealers, the type of
permits held by vessels, the number of DAS used by those vessels, the catch of recreational
fishermen and the location of those catches, and the catches and revenues from various special
management programs. Specialists (including professional members of plan development teams,
technical teams, committees, and Council staff) who worked with these data are familiar with the
most current analytical techniques and with the available data and information relevant to the
groundfish fishery.
The policy choices are clearly articulated, in sections 4.0 of this document, as the management
alternatives considered in this action. The supporting science and analyses, upon which the
policy choices are based, are summarized and described in section 7.0 of this document. All
supporting materials, information, data, and analyses within this document have been, to the
maximum extent practicable, properly referenced according to commonly accepted standards for
scientific literature to ensure transparency.
The review process used in preparation of this document involves the responsible Council, the
Northeast Fisheries Science Center, the Northeast Regional Office, and NOAA Fisheries Service
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

858

Applicable Law
Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

Headquarters. The Center’s technical review is conducted by senior level scientists with
specialties in population dynamics, stock assessment methods, demersal resources, population
biology, and the social sciences. The Council review process involves public meetings at which
affected stakeholders have opportunity to provide comments on the document. Review by staff at
the Regional Office is conducted by those with expertise in fisheries management and policy,
habitat conservation, protected species, and compliance with the applicable law. Final approval
of the action proposed in this document and clearance of any rules prepared to implement
resulting regulations is conducted by staff at NOAA Fisheries Service Headquarters, the
Department of Commerce, and the U.S. Office of Management and Budget.

9.8

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

This E.O. established nine fundamental federalism principles for Federal agencies to follow when
developing and implementing actions with federalism implications. The E.O. also lists a series of
policy making criteria to which Federal agencies must adhere when formulating and
implementing policies that have federalism implications. However, no federalism issues or
implications have been identified relative to the measures proposed in Amendment 16. This
action does not contain policies with federalism implications sufficient to warrant preparation of
an assessment under E.O. 13132. The affected states have been closely involved in the
development of the proposed management measures through their representation on the Council
(all affected states are represented as voting members of at least one Regional Fishery
Management Council). No comments were received from any state officials relative to any
federalism implications that may be associated with this action.

9.9

Executive Order 13158 (Marine Protected Areas)

The Executive Order on Marine Protected Areas requires each federal agency whose actions
affect the natural or cultural resources that are protected by an MPA to identify such actions, and,
to the extent permitted by law and to the maximum extent practicable, in taking such actions,
avoid harm to the natural and cultural resources that are protected by an MPA. The E.O. directs
federal agencies to refer to the MPAs identified in a list of MPAs that meet the definition of MPA
for the purposes of the Order. The E.O. requires that the Departments of Commerce and the
Interior jointly publish and maintain such a list of MPAs. As of the date of submission of this
document, the list of MPA sites has not been developed by the departments. No further guidance
related to this Executive Order is available at this time.

9.10 Paperwork Reduction Act
The purpose of the PRA is to control and, to the extent possible, minimize the paperwork burden
for individuals, small businesses, nonprofit institutions, and other persons resulting from the
collection of information by or for the Federal Government. The authority to manage information
and recordkeeping requirements is vested with the Director of the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB). This authority encompasses establishment of guidelines and policies, approval of
information collection requests, and reduction of paperwork burdens and duplications.
Amendment 16 may contain collection of information requirements subject to the PRA,
including:
•

Reporting requirements for SAPs and the Category B (regular) DAS Program

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

859

Applicable Law
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

•
•
•
•

Changes to possession limits, which will change the requirements to notify NMFS of
plans to fish in certain areas
Differential DAS counting areas, which will require advance notice to NMFS of areas
that will be fished
Sector monitoring provisions, and sector formation provisions
Provisions for reporting area fished, in order to facilitate assignment of catch to stock
areas

The PRA package prepared in support of this action and the information collection identified
above, including the required forms and supporting statements, will be submitted when the
Proposed Action is determined and the final amendment is submitted.

9.11 Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
The purpose of the RFA is to reduce the impacts of burdensome regulations and recordkeeping
requirements on small businesses. To achieve this goal, the RFA requires Federal agencies to
describe and analyze the effects of proposed regulations, and possible alternatives, on small
business entities. To this end, this document contains an IRFA, found below, which includes an
assessment of the effects that the Proposed Action and other alternatives are expected to have on
small entities.

9.11.1 Economic Impacts on Regulated Small Entities
The Proposed Action would affect regulated entities engaged in commercial fishing for
groundfish and entities that provide recreational fishing services to anglers. These entities include
any vessel that has been issued either an open access or a limited access Federal permit under the
Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan (FMP). The size standard for commercial
fishing (NAICS code 114111) is $4 million in sales while the size standard for party/charter
operators (part of NAICS code 487210) is $7 million. Available data indicate that based on 20052007 average conditions median gross sales by commercial fishing vessels were just over
$200,000 and no single fishing entity earned more than $2 million. Note that available data are
not adequate to identify affiliated vessels so each operating unit is considered a small entity for
purposes of the RFA. For regulated party/charter operators the median value of gross receipts
from passengers was just over $9,000 and did not exceed $500 thousand dollars in any year
during 2001 to 2007. Therefore, all regulated commercial fishing and all regulated party/charter
operators are determined to be small entities under the RFA. The remaining discussion describes
the number of regulated entities, the number of participating regulated entities, and the potential
economic impacts on participating regulated entities for party/charter operators and for
commercial fishing vessels.

9.11.2 Commercial Fishing Vessels
The Proposed Action would substantially change the provisions developed under Amendment 13
affecting sector formation and would substantially change effort controls for commercial fishing
vessel owners that do not choose to join a sector. Among vessel owners that possess a permit to
land groundfish, only limited access permit holders would be eligible to join a sector. Vessel
owners that possess only an open access permit would continue to be regulated with effort
controls. Since the economic impacts on small fishing businesses depend on the type of permit(s)
held economic impacts for each permit type is discussion below.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

860

Applicable Law
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

9.11.2.1 Open Access Permits (HB, I, J, K)
Of the available open access permits that may be held by vessel owners the Proposed Action
would not make any changes to regulations affecting permit categories J or K. Permit category I
is a recreational party/charter permit. The potential impacts of the Proposed Action changes to
regulations affecting party/charter operators are discussed later. Permit category HB is an open
access permit requiring the use of rod and reel hand gear and allows the vessel owner to retain up
to a specified possession limit for groundfish with special provisions for cod; the primary target
species for these vessels. Provisions for the cod possession limit tie the possession limit for HB
permits to the daily GOM cod possession limit for limited access permits, such that, the HB
possession limit would be proportionally adjusted to the change in the limited access permit
possession limit. Currently any vessel with an HB permit is limited to a cod possession limit of
75 pounds. Since the limited access possession limit would be increased from 800 to 2,000
pounds per day the HB permit possession limit would be increased from 75 to 200 pounds. Thus
the Proposed Action would provide increased economic opportunities for vessel owners that now
hold HB permits and may provide an incentive for new entrants.
During FY 2007 a total of 1,292 category HB permits were issued. Approximately half of these
permits reported any fishing activity on a VTR during FY 2007. Of these active vessels only 75
reported landing cod. Among those vessels landing cod a total of 342 reported trips were taken on
which 302 trips landed less than 75 pounds. Thus, based on recent activity reports the change in
the cod trip limit may have a modest positive impact on current participating small fishing
entities. Given the substantial increase in the cod trip limit under the Proposed Action past
activity may not be a reliable predictor of future activity. Nevertheless, the raised possession limit
for cod may be expected to offer improved economic opportunities to both current participants in
the fishery as well as being an attractive alternative for fishing businesses that may participate in
the future.

9.11.2.2 Limited Access Permits (HA, A, C, D, E, F)
The Proposed Action would limit eligibility to join a sector to vessel owners that hold a limited
access permit. This means that limited access permit holders may elect to join a sector or opt to
remain under an effort control program, thereby, offering vessel owners greater flexibility in
making business decisions. However, this flexibility may be illusory in some instances. Since
sectors are self-selecting some vessel owners may not be accepted into the sector of their choice
or any sector at all. Vessel owners with little or no PSC to contribute to a sector’s overall ACE
may find it difficult to find a sector that will accept them. Since each sector member is required to
sign a joint and severable contract, some vessel owners may not be accepted for past behaviors
that may be deemed unacceptable to the sector membership. As of September 1, 2009 a total of
723 of 1,480 eligible permits elected to join a sector. The extent to which any of the
circumstances that may have hindered individual flexibility previously described had an impact
on any of the 757 permits that did not join a sector is unknown.
Joining a sector is voluntary. This means that the decision whether or not to join a sector may be
expected to be based on whichever (i.e. joining a sector or opting for the effort control program)
offers the greater economic advantage. Since sectors will be granted a set of universal
exemptions and may request additional exemptions from regulatory measures that will apply to
vessels that opt for the so-called “common pool” sector vessels will be afforded greater flexibility
than otherwise. However, sectors will have to bear the administrative costs associated with
preparing an environmental assessment as well as the monitoring costs associated with a sector
manager, dockside monitoring, and at-sea monitoring. The magnitude of the administrative costs
for sector formation and operation was estimated to range from $60,000 to $150,000 per sector
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

861

Applicable Law
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

and the cost potential cost for dockside and at-sea monitoring ranged from $13,500 to $17,800
per vessel. Although these estimates are uncertain they serve to illustrate the fact that the potential
administrative costs associated with joining a sector may be expected to influence a vessel
owner’s decision. At least for FY 2010 the majority of these administrative costs will be
subsidized by the NMFS. Whether these subsidies- which include providing financial support for
preparation of sector EAs, dockside monitoring, and at-sea monitoring - will continue beyond FY
2010 is not known. Nevertheless, these subsidies may make joining a sector a more attractive
economic alternative during FY 2010 than otherwise.
The economic impacts of the Proposed Action on vessel owners that choose to join a sector
cannot be reliably quantified since any given sector may be expected to operate in a different
manner. A quantitative estimate of the economic impact of the Proposed Action effort control
measures on fishing businesses were reported in Section 7.5.1.3.1.1. Since joining a sector is
voluntary the economic impact on small fishing businesses that choose to join a sector may be
expected to be less than that estimated for the common pool.
Since the number of vessels that would join a sector was not known, the economic impacts of the
Proposed Action effort control measures reported in Section 7.5.1.3.1.1 were based on the
assumption that no new sectors form. Under this assumption vessels operating under remain in
the common pool may be expected to experience gross revenue losses of 9.8% relative to a 20052007 baseline. Note that this impact is only slightly larger than the estimated reduction in revenue
associated with the interim action measures (9.5%) using the same 2005-2007 baseline. This
means that the aggregate impact of the Proposed Action may have no additional economic burden
beyond that already incurred through interim action. However, since there are substantial
differences between the interim and the Proposed Action measures, the impacts may be expected
to differ among participating vessels even though the aggregate estimated impacts were similar.
Estimated impacts for the Proposed Action suggest that the impact on fishing revenue may be
expected to be larger on smaller vessels in terms of physical size compared to larger vessels.
Similarly, impacts on gillnet vessels tended to be higher than impacts on trawl vessels. These
tendencies may be a reflection of the differential impacts associated with trip or day boat status.
That is, both trip and day boats are affected by the same DAS reduction. However, the 24-hour
clock is likely to have a larger impact on day boats since most trips are less than 24-hours in
duration. In some respects the 24-hour clock has economic effects that are similar to differential
DAS counting since the number of trips that may be taken given the same allocation of DAS is
reduced. The extent to which the increased trip limit for GOM cod mitigates this effect on day
boats is uncertain.
The Proposed Action would implement a suite of gear restricted areas that would limit the use of
fishing gear to gear that meet specified performance characteristics that reduce bycatch of
flatfish; winter flounder and yellowtail flounder in particular. The designated restricted gear areas
correspond to the SNE/MA stock areas for these two species. Vessels that opt for the common
pool would be required to adopt specialized gear at an estimated cost of $13,000 for a complete
setup or about $750 to modify existing gear whereas sector vessels would not be subject to the
restricted gear regulations.
The Proposed Action effort control measures would apply to limited access vessels that are
managed by DAS. This includes anyone with a limited access permit categories A, D, E and F.
Neither permit category C (small vessel exemption) nor category HA (hand gear) vessels are
regulated by DAS. These vessels would be unaffected by the principal effort controls under
Proposed Action and would benefit from the change in trip limits for GOM cod. The GOM cod
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

862

Applicable Law
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

possession limit would be increased from 200 lbs to 750 pounds while category C permit holders
would be subject to the same trips limits as that of DAS vessels. Additionally, since vessels with
these permits are not regulated by DAS they would not be subject to the proposed commercial
common pool accountability measures.
Given the economic considerations presented by the effort control measures vessels with limited
access category C or HA permits may be expected to have comparatively little PSC to bring to a
sector and may be expected to have substantially improved economic opportunities under the
common pool measures compared to the interim action. In fact, none of the limited access
category C permit holders had elected to join a sector as of September 1, 2009 and only 6 of the
130 category HA permit holders had elected to join a sector. Of the remaining vessels that had not
elected to join a sector 337 DAS permit holders had no Category A DAS of which 164 had not
qualified for a PSC for any stock. These vessels may still be able to participate in the groundfish
fishery but would only be able to do so through the DAS leasing program. Among the vessels that
did not join a sector and either had some PSC and/or had nonzero Category A DAS the reasons
for electing to remain in the common pool are uncertain. Many of these vessels may have had low
PSCs, may have not been accepted by any sector, considered the cost of joining a sector to be too
high, or made a business decision in which the economic opportunities of fishing under effort
controls to be superior to joining a sector.
The flexibility afforded sectors includes exemptions from certain specified regulations as well as
the ability to request additional exemptions. Sector members would no longer be limited by DAS
allocations and would instead be limited by their available ACE. In this manner the economic
incentive changes from maximizing the value of throughput of all species on a DAS to
maximizing the value of the ACE. This change places a premium on timing of landings to market
conditions as well as changes in the selectivity and composition of species landed on fishing trips.
The substantial changes affecting vessels that choose to join a sector make it difficult to assess the
economic impact on these fishing businesses. The only sector that has been operating since sector
allocation was first authorized in 2004 is the Georges Bank Cod Hook Sector. The average
revenue per sector member during fishing years 2004 to 2008 increased from $61 thousand in
2004 to $112 thousand in 2008. Comparative analysis of vessels using similar gear that did not
join sectors suggests that vessels that joined the sector were more technically efficient. Whether
this difference in efficiency was because of the flexibility associated with regulatory exemptions
or a self-selection effect is not known. Nevertheless, available information is suggestive that
economic performance among sector vessels may be expected to improve relative to continuing
to remain under effort controls.

Table 307 - Summary of GB Cod Hook Sector Performance

Fishing
Year
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008

Revenue per
Vessel
$61
$86
$78
$102
$112

Total Revenue
$3,529
$4,217
$2,882
$2,545
$2,130

Members
58
49
37
25
19

The Proposed Action would allow the trading of stock-specific ACE between sectors that would
provide additional flexibility to participating vessels in the event that 1) the initial portfolio of
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

863

Applicable Law
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

ACE by stock does not match the desired portfolio, or 2) a sector exceeds its ACE and needs
additional quota to cover the overage to be able to continue fishing. The qualification criterion
used to compute the PSC for each stock means that allocations of ACE may or may not be
consistent with contemporary fishing patterns. The portfolio of stock-specific PSC based on the
qualifying years from 1996-2006 that sectors will end up with may not quite match up with
current activity or fishing opportunities. While inter-sector trading of ACE will allow sectors to
balance initial and desired quota allocations this is not likely to be a costless transaction. The
potential shortfalls or surplus in PSC for any given sector was evaluated for each sector by
subtracting the average shares by stock for fishing years 2005-2007 from the sector PSC (Table
2). In this manner a positive value is indicative of a PSC that exceeds recent activity. In this case
ACE for this specifies may represent a surplus that could be traded to another sector. By contrast,
a negative value means that the PSC is less than recent activity and the sector may be expected to
want to acquire additional ACE. Note that even sectors with a comparatively large negative value
for GB haddock may not need addition GB haddock ACE since the proposed ACL exceeds recent
landings by a substantial amount.
For several sectors (Port Clyde Community Groundfish and the Northeast Coastal Community are
some examples) there was reasonable correspondence between recent activity shares and the
sectors’ PSCs as the difference between the two did not exceed ±2%. In other cases, sectors either
have substantial potential surplus or deficits depending on stock. For example, recent GOM cod
landings exceed the NSC 3 PSC by 10.3%. On the other hand, recent GOM cod landings by
vessels that have enlisted in the Sustainable Fisheries Sector were 6.7% below their sector’s PSC.
Whether the Sustainable Fisheries Sector may choose to increase targeting of GOM cod or may
be trading partners with NSC 3 is not known.
Although the common pool is not formally considered a sector, its PSC would be the basis for
assigning an ACL to the common pool. Note that the difference between the common pool recent
activity share and the PSC is positive for all stocks except for GOM haddock. This means that the
ability for sector vessels to trade ACE amongst themselves to match 2005-2007 activity shares
will not be possible since the aggregate “ACE” assigned to the common pool will be larger than
its recent history and cannot be traded. For the majority of stocks this difference is small (less
than ±2% but for SNE/MA yellowtail flounder this difference is 15.3%. Thus sectors may find it
difficult to obtain sufficient SNE/MA yellowtail ACE to be able to take full advantage of all
available fishing opportunities within this stock area.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

864

Applicable Law
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
Table 308 - Summary of Sector PSC minus 2005-2007 Average Share by Sector
Sector Name
Common

Number
of
Permits

GOM
Cod

GB Cod

GOM
Haddock

GB
Haddock

CCGOM
Yellowtail

GB
Yellowtail

SNEMA
Yellowtail

Pollock

Redfish

White
Hake

Plaice

GOM
Winter

GB
Winter

Witch

757

2.4%

2.3%

-0.7%

1.1%

4.1%

0.8%

15.3%

1.8%

1.7%

2.7%

4.1%

7.4%

1.1%

1.2%

NSC2

-1.8%

-1.7%

-10.2%

1.3%

-8.1%

0.4%

1.6%

-5.3%

-6.7%

1.4%

0.5%

-3.4%

-0.9%

-1.4%

NSC3

-10.3%

0.9%

-3.5%

0.0%

-0.1%

0.0%

0.4%

-1.7%

0.9%

1.8%

3.6%

1.3%

0.0%

1.9%

NSC4

0.7%

1.9%

-0.5%

2.2%

0.0%

1.2%

2.0%

0.7%

2.8%

2.9%

3.3%

0.4%

-0.4%

2.0%

NSC5

0.3%

-0.9%

0.7%

1.3%

0.7%

-9.3%

0.4%

0.5%

0.2%

-0.7%

0.7%

-0.6%

0.1%

NSC6

0.5%

-1.1%

-0.9%

0.1%

-1.0%

0.4%

3.5%

-0.3%

-2.4%

-0.9%

-3.3%

1.0%

1.5%

-2.5%

NSC7

0.4%

-2.1%

0.5%

1.0%

3.3%

0.5%

-3.1%

0.1%

0.3%

-0.1%

0.3%

2.9%

-5.0%

0.3%

NSC8

0.3%

-3.2%

0.0%

-0.1%

3.2%

0.6%

-6.2%

-0.1%

-0.6%

1.1%

2.3%

-0.8%

NSC9

1.3%

-5.3%

2.1%

0.4%

2.1%

-0.6%

-1.3%

1.8%

3.7%

1.5%

1.3%

1.4%

4.2%

1.0%

NSC10

-2.1%

-0.1%

-2.2%

0.4%

-9.2%

1.0%

0.4%

0.9%

0.3%

0.4%

0.6%

-13.1%

0.5%

0.4%

NSC11

0.1%

0.2%

-0.3%

0.0%

-0.3%

0.0%

-5.5%

-0.2%

0.7%

1.2%

0.2%

0.0%

0.4%

NSC12

0.5%

0.0%

-0.1%

0.0%

0.1%

0.0%

0.1%

0.2%

-0.1%

0.0%

0.1%

NSC13

0.7%

-4.5%

0.4%

1.1%

0.5%

-2.0%

-4.9%

0.7%

1.8%

0.5%

0.1%

0.5%

-2.1%

-0.6%

GB Cod Fixed Gear

1.2%

15.3%

-0.5%

-4.3%

0.8%

0.0%

0.1%

5.1%

-0.7%

0.7%

0.4%

0.3%

0.0%

0.5%

Tri-State

0.6%

-0.4%

2.6%

0.7%

0.1%

-4.5%

-2.2%

-0.6%

-0.3%

-1.5%

-3.2%

-2.8%

-0.4%

-0.5%

Sustainable Harvest

6.7%

-1.6%

13.3%

-5.2%

3.6%

1.5%

5.0%

1.8%

-1.9%

-8.6%

-9.8%

2.2%

-0.1%

-2.2%

NE Coast Community

0.3%

0.1%

0.2%

0.0%

-2.0%

0.3%

0.2%

0.3%

0.2%

0.0%

-0.2%

0.1%

Port Clyde

-1.7%

0.2%

-0.9%

0.0%

-0.1%

0.0%

0.7%

-0.3%

0.0%

-1.9%

1.7%

0.0%

-0.1%

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

865

Applicable Law
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

9.11.2.3 Commercial Fishing Impacts of Non-Selected Effort Control
Alternatives
In addition to the Proposed Action two other effort control programs were considered. These
alternatives included one that relied on increased use of differential DAS (Alternative 2a) and
another (Alternative 4) that would have implemented a 40% reduction in DAS over FW42 levels
as well as gear restricted areas. A detailed comparison of estimated economic impacts between
the Proposed Action and the non-selected alternatives may be found in Section 7.5.1.3.1.3. The
findings are summarized herein.
The aggregate impact of the Proposed Action was lower (a 9.8% reduction in total fishing
revenue) as compared to Alternative 2A (14.7% reduction) and Alternative 4 (18.5% reduction).
Among the considered alternatives Alternative 4 tended to have larger adverse impacts on fishing
businesses across home port states and dependence on groundfish for total fishing income.
Alternative 2A tended to have larger adverse impacts on vessels from Maine, and Massachusetts
while the Proposed Action impacts were larger for vessels from New Hampshire as well as from
Southern New England and Mid-Atlantic states. However, due to differences in fishing strategies
at the individual business level one alternative may provide regulatory relief for some vessels but
may prove more burdensome for others. There was no one alternative that would have provided
regulatory relief for all fishing businesses.

9.11.3 Party/Charter Impacts
The Proposed Action continues most management measures implemented under the Interim
Action. For this reason, the Proposed Action would not have substantial economic impacts over
and above what had previously analyzed. Nevertheless the expected economic impacts on small
entities engaged in party/charter businesses are discussed below. The manner in which the
realized economic impacts during FY 2009 and continuing into FY 2010 and beyond may differ
from that discussed below cannot be assessed at this time because the FY 2009 fishing year will
not end until April, 2010.
Party/charter permits are issued as an open access category I permit under the Northeast
Multispecies FMP. During Fishing Year 2007 (FY 2007) 762 party/charter permits were issued.
Additionally, limited access permit holders (1,525 during FY 2007) may take passengers for hire,
but do not possess a party/charter permit since the Multispecies FMP prohibits issuing both an
open access and a limited access permit to the same vessel. During FY 2007 there were 128 of the
762 open access party/charter permit holders that reported taking at least one for-hire trip, of
which, 74 reported keeping groundfish on one or more trips. An additional 29 limit access permit
holders reported taking passengers for hire, of which, 18 reported keeping groundfish on one or
more for-hire trips. Thus a total of 92 party charter operators participated in the party/charter
recreational groundfish fishery during FY 2007.
Available data indicate that about two-thirds of participating party/charter operators would not be
adversely affected by the Proposed Action. These vessels either did not take any trips in the Gulf
of Maine during April 1 to April 15 that retained cod, did not report keeping any winter flounder
in the SNE/MA stock area, or did not retain more than 10 Georges Bank cod on any for-hire trip.
The remaining 29 participating vessels were estimated to lose an average of $10,393 in sales due
to potential lost passengers. All but four of these affected vessels were adversely affected by only
one of the Proposed Action recreational measures.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

866

Applicable Law
Executive Order 12866

The realized impact on party/charter vessels is uncertain since impacts depend on angler response
to any one of the proposed measures. These responses may be expected to have different impacts
depending on where party/charter operators are located. The majority of party/charter operators
from Maine, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts take trips exclusively in the Gulf of Maine.
Passenger demand in these three states would only be adversely affected by the two-week
extension of the closed season on Gulf of Maine cod. While party/charter operators may be
expected to try to shift trips that would otherwise have taken place during early April to later in
the month or into May the ability to do so may be limited. At least some of the impacts of the
extended closure may be offset by the reduction in the haddock size limit as this action would
increase the number of opportunities for party/charter passengers to keep more haddock. Since
the majority of occasions where haddock were kept occurred in the Gulf of Maine, to the extent
that party/charter demand is influenced by the chance to keep more fish, passenger demand may
be expected to increase for Gulf of Maine party/charter operators.
Unlike the party/charter passengers in the Gulf of Maine, anglers taking party/charter trips may
be affected by the removal of the bag limit on Georges Bank cod and/or the prohibition on
keeping winter flounder. Compared to angler response to the Gulf of Maine cod closure, angler
response to these measures may be larger because they would affect all trips not just trips during
a particular season. The prohibition on retaining winter flounder may be particularly sensitive
since the winter flounder season is short and occurs during early spring when the availability of
substitute species is limited. Angler response to removing the bag limit on Georges Bank cod is
uncertain. Realized trips indicate that the majority of angler trips harvest fewer than 10 cod per
angler. However, angler trip demand is believed to be driven by expectations and the extent to
which those expectations may be constrained by regulation may be anticipated to influence
demand. Note that these two measures (prohibition on SNE/MA winter flounder and removing
the GB cod bag limit) are likely to have a larger impact on party/charter operators from Rhode
Island to New Jersey. Since the number of trips that also landed haddock is likely to be
comparatively small, reduced passenger demand for trips in the SNE/MA area as a result of the
prohibition on landings SNE/MA winter flounder may not be expected to be offset by the
reduction in the haddock size limit. It is more likely that removing the GB cod bag limit will have
more of an influence and would be expected to increase passenger demand for trips. When
compared to the No Action alternative, however, this is not a change in management measures.
In additional to the measures described above that were implemented on May 1, 2009 the
Proposed Action would remove the limit on the number of hooks and would remove the
prohibition on filleting fish at sea. These two measures would provide some economic relief to
party/charter operators although the relative magnitude of this relief is uncertain. Removal of the
limit on hooks would improve the likelihood that a recreationally caught fish would be able to be
retained. At least part of the underlying motivation fishing is to keep fish particularly in so-called
meat fisheries removal of the hook limit would enhance the value of a recreational fishing trip
even if the number of fishing trips does not change. At-sea filleting of fish may be expected to
increase the quality of services that party/charter operators may offer to their customer base.
Whether this service increases the demand for party/charter trips is uncertain, but would increase
the overall value of the recreational fishing experience.

9.12 Executive Order 12866
The purpose of E.O 12866 is to enhance planning and coordination with respect to new and
existing regulations. This E.O. requires the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to review
regulatory programs that are considered to be “significant.” E.O. 12866 requires a review of

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

867

Applicable Law
Executive Order 12866

proposed regulations to determine whether or not the expected effects would be significant, where
a significant action is any regulatory action that may:

•

Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely
affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity,
jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal
governments or communities;

•

Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or
planned by another agency;

•

Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan
programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or

•

Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the
President’s priorities, of the principles set forth in the Executive Order.

The Northeast groundfish fishery has been regulated by days at sea (DAS) since 1994. Since then
the fishery has been regulated through a series of DAS reductions in concert with numerous other
measures including year-round and seasonal area closures, gear restrictions, and trip limits. In the
absence of output controls these measures were unable to prevent persistent overfishing from
occurring, in part, because DAS controls lack a direct link between the individual benefits
received from fishing and the external costs of overfishing. The Proposed Action would bring the
Northeast Multispecies FMP into compliance with the 2006 MSA reauthorization that required
setting of ABCs, ACLs and AMs. The Proposed Action would expand the use of sector allocation
originally established in 2004. Expansion of sector allocation will also key the transition from
effort controls to output controls where sector allocation is one means of allocating available
ACL to groups of affiliated vessel owners. These allocations to sectors will more effectively link
actions with the costs and benefits of those actions limiting the external diseconomies to
individual sector members. That is, actions by one sector will not impose external diseconomies
on other sectors, but within-sector external diseconomies may remain.
The economic impacts of the Proposed Action are uncertain. Analysis of the impacts of the effort
control measures (Section 7.5.1.3.1) indicate that fishing revenue could decline by a little less
than 10%. During fishing year 2007 just over 600 vessels reported groundfish revenues. The total
value of all species reported by these 600 vessels was $193.3 million in constant 1999 dollars.
Applying the 10% reduction in revenue to FY 2007 totals landed by the 600 groundfish vessels,
results in an estimated reduction of $19.3 million measured in constant 1999 dollars. Note,
however, that the estimated reduction in fishing revenue was based on an assumption that no new
sectors would form, and that the estimated impact on fishing revenue was based on the same
baseline (fishing revenue during 2005-2007) as that of the Interim Action. The former was
necessary because many of the provisions for joining a sector including qualification criteria for
PSC were not known at the time the analysis had to be completed, while the latter means that the
economic impacts of the Proposed Action effort control measures may result in comparatively
little added economic burden during 2010 beyond what has already occurred as a result of taking
action during 2009. That is, the estimated reduction in fishing revenue for 2009 was 9.5% while
the estimated reduction under the Proposed Action was 9.8%. At this time the realized impact of
taking Interim Action is not known since the 2009 fishing year began in May, 2009.
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

868

Applicable Law
E.O. 12898 - Environmental Justice

Joining a sector is voluntary. This means that the decision whether or not to join a sector may be
expected to be based on whichever (i.e. joining a sector or opting for the effort control program)
offers the greater economic advantage. Since sectors will be granted a set of universal
exemptions and may request additional exemptions from regulatory measures that will apply to
vessels that opt for the so-called “common pool” sector vessels will be afforded greater flexibility
than otherwise. Sector members would no longer be limited by DAS allocations and would
instead be limited by their available ACE. In this manner the economic incentive changes from
maximizing the value of throughput of all species on a DAS to maximizing the value of the ACE.
This change places a premium on timing of landings to market conditions as well as changes in
the selectivity and composition of species landed on fishing trips. The manner in which this may
be accomplished will depend on the operational rules established by each sector and the relative
skill with which sector members are able to manage a portfolio with different levels of quota
available for different stocks. The only sector that has been operating since sector allocation was
first authorized in 2004 is the Georges Bank Cod Hook Sector. The average revenue per sector
member during fishing years 2004 to 2008 increased from $61 thousand in 2004 to $112
thousand in 2008. Comparative analysis of vessels using similar gear that did not join sectors
suggests that vessels that joined the sector were more technically efficient. Whether this
difference in efficiency was because of the flexibility associated with regulatory exemptions or a
self-selection effect is not known. Nevertheless, available information is suggestive that
economic performance among sector vessels may be expected to improve relative to continuing
to remain under effort controls.
Table 309 - Summary of GB Cod Hook Sector Performance

Fishing
Year
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008

Revenue per
Vessel
($1,000)
$61
$86
$78
$102
$112

Total Revenue
($1,000)
$3,529
$4,217
$2,882
$2,545
$2,130

Members
58
49
37
25
19

Summary
The Proposed Action would not be significant for purposes of E.O. 12866. Quantified impacts
would be approximately $19 million, but may not differ substantially from that estimated for the
Interim Action. Available data suggest that vessels that join sectors will be more efficient than
they would otherwise be if they were unable to join a sector.

9.13 E.O. 12898 - Environmental Justice
Executive Order (E.O.) 12898 requires that, “to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by
law… each Federal agency shall make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by
identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and lowincome populations in the United States and its territories and possessions…” Due to data
constraints and other concerns, the means for conducting this analysis in detail are not yet
available at this time. Nonetheless, many of the participants in the groundfish industry may come
from lower income and/or ethnic minority populations. These populations may be more
vulnerable to more restrictive management measures. For example, in many ports crew may be
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

869

Applicable Law
E.O. 12898 - Environmental Justice

comprised of ethnic minorities, and many regions in which fishing is an important livelihood can
also be economically impoverished. Although some economic impacts are likely to occur, it is not
expected nor can it be shown at this time that there would be a disproportionately high and
adverse effect on the health or environment of minority and low-income populations.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

870

References
Literature Cited

10.0 References
10.1 Literature Cited
Abernathy, A., ed. 1989. Description of the Mid-Atlantic environment. U.S. Dep. Interior,
Minerals Manage. Ser., Herndon, VA. 167 p. + appendices.
Aguilar, A. 2002. Fin whale Balaenoptera physalus. In: W.F. Perrin, B. Würsig, and J.G.M.
Thewissen (eds.), Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals. pp. 435–438.
Albikovskaya, L. K. 1982. Distribution and abundance of Atlantic wolffish, spotted wolffish and
northern wolffish in the Newfoundland area. Northw. Atl. Fish. Org. Sci. Coun. Stud.
No.3:29-32.
Albikovskaya, L. K. 1983. Feeding characteristics of wolffishes in the Labrador-Newfoundland
region. Northw. Atl. Fish. Org. Sci. Coun. Stud. No.6:35-38.
Almeida, F., L. Arlen, P. Auster, J. Cross, J. Lindholm, J. Link, D. Packer, A, Paulson, R. Reid,
and P. Valentine. 2000. The effects of marine protected areas on fish and benthic fauna:
the Georges Bank closed area II example. Poster presented at Am. Fish. Soc. 130th Ann.
Meet. St. Louis, MO, August 20-24, 2000.
Backus, R.H. 1987. Georges Bank. Massachusetts Inst. Tech. Press, Cambridge, MA. 593 p.
Beardsley, R.C., B. Butman, W.R. Geyer, and P. Smith. 1996. Physical oceanography of the Gulf
of Maine: an update. In G.T Wallace and E.F. Braasch, eds. Proceedings of the Gulf of
Maine ecosystem dynamics scientific symposium and workshop. p. 39-52. Reg. Assn.
for Res. on the Gulf of Maine (RARGOM), Rep. 97-1.
Best, P.B., J. L. Bannister, R.L. Brownell, Jr., and G.P. Donovan (eds.). 2001. Right whales:
worldwide status. J. Cetacean Res. Manage. (Special Issue) 2. 309pp.
Bigelow, H. B. and W.C. Schroeder. 1953. Fishes of the Gulf of Maine. Fish Bull., U.S. 53:1577.
Boesch, D.F. 1979. Benthic ecological studies: macrobenthos. Chapter 6 in Middle Atlantic
outer continental shelf environmental studies. Conducted by Virginia Inst. Mar. Stud.
under contract AA550-CT6062 with U.S. Dep. Interior, Bur. Land Manage. 301 p.
Bowman R. E., C. E. Stillwell, W. L. Michaels, and M. D. Grosslein. 2000. Food of Northwest
Atlantic fishes and two common species of squid. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-F/NE155, 138pp.
Braun-McNeill, J., and S.P. Epperly. 2004. Spatial and temporal distribution of sea turtles in the
western North Atlantic and the U.S. Gulf of Mexico from Marine Recreational Fishery
Statistics Survey (MRFSS). Mar. Fish. Rev. 64(4):50-56.
Brodziak, Jon K. T. 2005. Haddock, Melanogrammus aeglefinus, life history and habitat
characteristics. NOAA Tech. Mem. NMFS-NE-196.
Brooks, D.A. 1996. Physical oceanography of the shelf and slope seas from Cape Hatteras to
Georges Bank: A brief overview. In K. Sherman, N.A. Jaworski, and T.J. Smayda, eds.
The northeast shelf ecosystem – assessment, sustainability, and management. p. 47-75.
Blackwell Science, Cambridge, MA. 564 p.
Brown, M.W., O.C. Nichols, M.K. Marx, and J.N. Ciano. 2002. Surveillance of North Atlantic
right whales in Cape Cod Bay and adjacent waters—2002. Final Report to the Division
of Marine Fisheries, Commonwealth of Massachusetts. 29pp.
Burdge, Rabel J. 1998. A Conceptual Approach to Social Impact Assessment (revised edition).
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

871

References
Literature Cited

Social ecology Press, Middleton, WI.
Burnett, J., L. O’Brien, R.K. Mayo, J. Darde, and M Bohan. 1989. Finfish maturity sampling and
classification schemes used during Northeast Fisheries Science Center bottom trawl
surveys, 1963-1989. NOAA Tech Mem. NMFS-F/NEC-76, iii + 14 p.
Butman, V., M. Noble and J. Moody. 1982. Observations of near-bottom currents at the shelf
break near Wilmington Canyon in the Mid-Atlantic outer continental shelf area: results
of 1978-1979 field seasons. U.S. Geol. Surv. Final Rep. to U.S. Dep. Interior, Bur. Land
Manage: 3-1-3-58.
Clapham, P.J. 2002. Humpback whale, Megaptera novaeangliae. In: W.F. Perrin, B. Würsig, and
J.G.M. Thewissen (eds.), Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals. Academic Press, CA. pp
589-591.
Clapham, P.J., S.B. Young, and R.L. Brownell. 1999. Baleen whales: Conservation issues and
the status of the most endangered populations. Mammal Rev. 29(1):35-60
Collette, B. B. and G. Klein-MacPhee. 2002. Bigelow and Schroeder’s Fishes of the Gulf of
Maine. 3rd Edition. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.
Colvocoresses, J.A. and J.A. Musick. 1984. Species associations and community composition of
Middle Atlantic Bight continental shelf demersal fishes. Fish. Bull. (U.S.) 82: 295-313.
Cook, S.K. 1988. Physical oceanography of the Middle Atlantic Bight. In A.L. Pacheco, ed.
Characterization of the middle Atlantic water management unit of the northeast regional
action plan. p. 1-50. NOAA Tech. Mem. NMFS-F/NEC-56. 322 p.
Cooper, R.A., P.C. Valentine, J.R. Uzmann, and R.A. Slater. 1987. Submarine canyons. In R.H.
Backus and D.W. Bourne, eds. Georges Bank. p. 52-63. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Correia, Steve, Robert Glenn, Penny Howell, Larry Jacobson, and Carl Wilson. 2006. American
lobster stock assessment for peer review. Stock Assessment Report No. 06-03. Atlantic
States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC). 352 p.
Costello, Christopher, Steven D. Gaines, John Lynham. 2008. Can Catch Shares Prevent
Fisheries Collapse? Science 19 September 2008: Vol. 321. no. 5896, pp. 1678 – 1681.
Di Jin and Thunberg, Eric. 2005. An analysis of fishing vessel accidents in fishing area off the
northeastern United States. Safety Science. 43:523-540.
Dirlam, J. and D. Georgianna. 1994. "Recent adjustment in New England Fresh Fish Processing."
Marine Resource Economics. 9:375-384.
Dorsey, E.M. 1998. Geological overview of the sea floor of New England. In E.M. Dorsey and
J. Pederson, eds. Effects of fishing gear on the sea floor of New England. p. 8-14. MIT
Sea Grant Pub. 98-4.
Falk-Petersen, I. R., and T. K. Hansen. 1991. Reproductive biology of wolffish Anarhincas
lupus from north-Norwegian waters. Int. Coun. Explor. Mer, Demersal Fish. Comm.
ICES CM 1991/G:14:17.
Farrington, Marriane. Selectivity and Survival of Atlantic Cod and Haddock in the Northwest
Atlantic Longline Fishery. NOAA Project 95-NER-141. July 31, 1998.
Gabriel, W. 1992. Persistence of demersal fish assemblages between Cape Hatteras and Nova
Scotia, northwest Atlantic. J. Northwest Atl. Fish. Sci. 14: 29-46.
Georges Bank Cod Fixed Gear Sector. 2007. Georges Bank Cod Fixed Gear Sector Annual
Report. June 28, 2007.
Georges Bank Hook Sector. 2004. Georges Bank Hook Sector Annual Report.
Georges Bank Hook Sector. 2005. Georges Bank Hook Sector Annual Report.
Georges Bank Hook Sector. 2006. Georges Bank Hook Sector Annual Report. June 29, 2006.
Georges Bank Hook Sector. 2006. Georges Bank Hook Sector Annual Report. June 28, 2007.
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

872

References
Literature Cited

Goode, G. B. 1884. The food fishes of the United States. In: The Fisheries and Fishery
Industries of the United States. U.S. Comm. Fish Fish. Rept., Sect. 1, Part. 3, pp. 163682.
Grant, S.M., W. Hiscock, and P. Brett. 2005. Mitigation of capture and survival of wolffish
captured incidentally in the Grand Bank yellowtail flounder otter trawl fishery. Centre for
Sustainable Aquatic Resources, Marine Institute of Memorial University of
Newfoundland, Canada. P-136, xii + 68 p.
Gunnarsson, A., E. Hjorleifsson, K. Thorarinsson and G. Marteinsdottir. 2006. Growth, maturity
and fecundity of wolffish Anarhichas lupus L. in Icelandic waters. J. Fish Biol. 68:11581176.
Hagen, N. T. and K. H. Mann. 1992. Functional response of the predators American lobster
Homarus americanus and Atlantic wolffish Anarhichas lupus to increasing numbers of
the green urchin Stronglycoentrotus droebachiensis. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 159:89-112.
Hall-Arber, Madeleine, Christopher Dyer, John Poggie, James McNally and Renee Gagne. 2001.
Fishing Communities and Fishing Dependency in the Northeast Region of the United
States. MARFIN Project Final Report to National Marine Fisheries Service.
Harrington, J.M., Myers, R.A. and Rosenberg, A.A. 2005. Wasted Resources: Bycatch and
discards in US Fisheries. Oceana, Washington, DC, 282 pp.
He, Pingguo, Hamilton, Rachel, and Smith, Tracey. 2005. The effect of mesh size and shape on
codend selectivity in the Gulf of Maine multispecies trawl fisheries. NOAA Fisheries
Cooperative Research Partners Program, EA 133F-02-CN-0040. Published as: He,
Pingguo. 2007. Selectivity of large-mesh trawl cod-ends in the Gulf of Maine; I.
Comparison of square and diamond mesh. Fisheries Research 83:44:59.
Hecker, B. 1990. Variation in megafaunal assemblages on the continental margin south of New
England. Deep-Sea Res. 37: 37-57.
Hecker, B. 2001. Polygons BH1–4 (Veatch, Hydrographer, Oceanographer and Lydonia
Canyons). In S. Azimi, ed. Priority ocean areas for protection in the Mid-Atlantic. p.
32-36. Natural Resources Defense Council, Washington, DC. 59 p.
Hecker, B. and G. Blechschmidt. 1979. Epifauna of the northeastern U.S. continental margin. In
B. Hecker, G. Blechschmidt, and P. Gibson, eds. Epifaunal zonation and community
structure in three mid- and North Atlantic canyons. Appendix A. Final Rep. Canyon
Assess. Stud. in the Mid- and North Atlantic Areas of the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf.
U.S. Dep. Interior, Bur. Land Manage., Washington, DC, January 11, 1980.
Hecker, B., D.T. Logan, F.E. Gandarillas, and P.R. Gibson. 1983. Megafaunal assemblages in
canyon and slope habitats. Vol. III: Chapter I. Canyon and slope processes study. Final
Rep. prepared for U.S. Dep. Interior, Minerals Manage. Ser., Washington, D.C.
Hirth, H.F. 1997. Synopsis of the biological data of the green turtle, Chelonia mydas (Linnaeus
1758). USFWS Biological Report 97(1). 120pp.
Horwood, J. 2002. Sei whale, Balaenoptera borealis. In: W.F. Perrin, B. Würsig, and J.G.M.
Thewissen (eds.), Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals. Academic Press, CA. pp. 10691071.
Howell P., Howe A., Gibson M., Ayvasian S. 1992. Fishery management plan for inshore stocks
of winter flounder. Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. Fish Mgmt. Rep 21.
May 1992.
Howell, W. Hunting, Morin, Michael, Rennels, Nathan, and Goethel, David. 2008. Residency of
adult Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) in the Western Gulf of Maine. Fisheries Research, 91:
123-132.
Idoine, J.S. 1998. Atlantic wolffish. In: S. H. Clark, ed. Status of Fishery Resources off the
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

873

References
Literature Cited

Northeastern United States for 1998. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NE-115:100-101.
International Council for the Exploration of the Sea [ICES]. 2000. Report of the ICES Advisory
Committee on the Marine Environment (ACME) 2000. Cooperative Research Report
No. 241, 27 pp.
James, M.C., R.A. Myers, and C.A. Ottenmeyer. 2005a. Behaviour of leatherback sea turtles,
Dermochelys coriacea, during the migratory cycle. Proc. R. Soc. B, 272: 1547-1555.
Jin, Di, P. Hoagland, and E. Thunberg, 2005, "An analysis of the relationship between fish
harvesting and processing sectors in New England." Marine Resource Economics. 21:4762.
Johannessen, T., J. Gjosaeter and E. Moksness. 1993. Reproduction, spawning behaviour and
captive breeding of the common wolffish, Anarhincas lupus L. Aquaculture 115:41-51.
Johnson, Donna L. 2004. American plaice, Hippoglossoides platessoides, life history and habitat
characteristics. NOAA Tech. Mem. NMFS-NE-187.
Johnson, A., G. Salvador, J. Kenney, J. Robbins, S. Kraus, S. Landry, and P. Clapham. 2005.
Fishing gear involved in entanglements of right and humpback whales. Mar. Mamm. Sci.
21(4): 635-645.
Jonsson, G. 1982. Contribution to the biology of catfish (Anarhichas lupus) at Iceland. Rit
Fiskideild 6:3-26.
Katona, S.K., V. Rough, and D.T. Richardson. 1993. A field guide to whales, porpoises, and
seals from Cape Cod to Newfoundland. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
316pp.
Keats, D. W., G. R. South, and D. H. Steele. 1985. Reproduction and egg guarding of Atlantic
wolffish (Anarhichas lupus: Anarhichidae) and ocean pout (Macrozoarces americanus:
Zoarcidae) in Newfoundland waters. Can. J. Zool. 63:2565-2568.
Keinath, J.A., J.A. Musick, and R.A. Byles. 1987. Aspects of the biology of Virginia’s sea turtles:
1979-1986. Virginia J. Sci. 38(4): 329-336.
Keith, Charles. 2006. Status of Fishery Resources off the Northeastern US, Atlantic wolffish
(Anarhichas lupus). NEFSC Resource Evaluation and Assessment Division.
http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/sos/spsyn/og/wolf/
Kelley, J.T. 1998. Mapping the surficial geology of the western Gulf of Maine. In E.M. Dorsey
and J. Pederson, eds. Effects of fishing gear on the sea floor of New England. p. 15-19.
MIT Sea Grant Pub. 98-4.
Kenney, R.D. 2002. North Atlantic, North Pacific, and Southern hemisphere right whales. In:
W.F.Perrin, B. Wursig, and J.G.M. Thewissen (eds.), Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals.
Academic Press, CA. pp. 806-813.
King M.J, M. H. Kao, J. A. Brown, and G. L. Fletcher. 1989. Lethal freezing temperatures of
fish: limitations to seapen culture in Atlantic Canada. Proc. Ann. Aquacult. Assoc. Can.
89-3:47-49.
Leatherback Turtle Expert Working Group (TEWG). 2007. An assessment of the leatherback
turtle population in the Atlantic Ocean. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC555. 116 pp.
Liao, Y.-Y., and M. C. Lucas. 2000. Growth diet and metabolism of common wolffish in the
North Sea, a fast growing population. J. Fish Biol. 56:810-825.
Lindeboom, H.J., and S.J. de Groot. 1998. Impact II. The effects of different types of fisheries
on the North Sea and Irish Sea benthic ecosystems. NIOZ Rapport 1998-1. 404 p.
Mahon, R., S.K. Brown, K.C.T. Zwanenburg, D.B. Atkinson, K.R. Buja, L. Claflin, G.D. Howell,
M.E. Monaco, R.N. O’Boyle, and M. Sinclair. 1998. Assemblages and biogeography of
demersal fishes of the east coast of North America. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 55: 1704Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

874

References
Literature Cited

1738.
Marciano, David, Rosen, Shale, Pol, Michael, and Szymanski, Mark. 2005. Testing the
selectivity of gillnets to target haddock in the Gulf of Maine. NOAA Fisheries
Cooperative Research Partners Program, contract EA 133F-04-SE-0821.
McCay, Bonnie and Marie Cieri. 2000. Fishing Ports of the Mid-Atlantic. Report to the MidAtlantic Fishery Management Council. Dover, Delaware.
McElderry, Howard and Bruce Turris. 2008. Evaluation of Monitoring and Reporting Needs for
Groundfish Sectors in New England: Phase II Report. Archipelago Marine Research Ltd.
and Pacific Fisheries Management Incorporated. Prepared for the Gulf of Maine Research
Institute, Portland, ME.
Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council [MAFMC] and New England Fishery Management
Council [NEFMC]. 2007. Northeast Region Standardized Bycatch Reporting
Methodology: An Omnibus Amendment to the Fishery Management Plans of the New
England and Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Councils. June 2007. SBRM 2007.
Morgan, G.R. 1997. Individual quota management in fisheries: methodologies for determining
catch quotas and initial quota allocation. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper. No. 371.
Rome, FAO. 41p.
Morgan, L.E. and R. Chuenpagdee. 2003. Shifting gears: assessing the collateral impacts of
fishing methods in U.S. waters. Pew Science Series on Conservation and the
Environment, 42 p.
Morreale, S.J. and E.A. Standora. 1998. Early life stage ecology of sea turtles in northeastern
U.S. waters. U.S. Dep. Commer. NOAA Tech. Mem. NMFS-SEFSC-413, 49 pp.
Morreale, S.J. and E.A. Standora. 2005. Western North Atlantic waters: Crucial developmental
habitat for Kemp’s ridley and loggerhead sea turtles. Chel. Conserv. Biol. 4(4):872-882.
Mountain, D.G., R.W. Langton, and L. Watling. 1994. Oceanic processes and benthic substrates:
influences on demersal fish habitats and benthic communities. In R.W. Langton, J.B.
Pearce, and J.A. Gibson, eds. Selected living resources, habitat conditions, and human
perturbations of the Gulf of Maine: environmental and ecological considerations for
fishery management. p. 20-25. NOAA Tech. Mem. NMFS-NE-106. 70 p.
Murray, K.T. 2006. Estimated average annual by-catch of Loggerhead Sea Turtles (Caretta
caretta) in U.S. Mid-Atlantic bottom otter trawl gear, 1996-2004. U.S. Dep. Commer.,
Northeast Fish. Sci. Cent. Ref. Doc. 06-19; 26 p.
Musick, J.A. and C.J. Limpus. 1997. Habitat utilization and migration in juvenile sea turtles. Pp.
137-164 In: Lutz, P.L., and J.A. Musick, eds., The Biology of Sea Turtles. CRC Press,
New York. 432 pp.
National Research Council (NRC). 1990. Decline of the Sea Turtles: Causes and Prevention.
Committee on Sea Turtle Conservation. Natl. Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 259 pp.
National Research Council [NRC]. 2002. Effects of trawling and dredging on seafloor habitat.
Ocean Studies Board, Division on Earth and Life Studies, National Research Council.
National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 126 p.
Nelson, G. A., and M. R. Ross. 1992. Distribution, growth and food habits of the Atlantic
wolffish Anarhichas lupus) from the Gulf of Maine-Georges Bank region. J. Northw.
Atl. Fish. Sci. 13:53-61.
New England Fishery Management Council [NEFMC]. 1998. Final Amendment #11 to the
Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan, #9 to the Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery
Management Plan, Amendment #1 to the Monkfish Fishery Management Plan,
Amendment #1 to the Atlantic Salmon Fishery Management Plan, and components of the
proposed Atlantic Herring Fishery Management Plan for Essential Fish Habitat,
incorporating the environmental assessment. October 7, 1998.
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

875

References
Literature Cited

New England Fishery Management Council [NEFMC]. 2003. Amendment 13 to the Northeast
Multispecies Fishery Management Plan, including a Final Supplemental Environmental
Impact Statement and an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. Vols I and II, submitted
Dec 1 2003.
New England Fishery Management Council [NEFMC]. 2004a. Framework Adjustment 40A (FW
40A) to the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan.
New England Fishery Management Council [NEFMC]. 2004b. Framework Adjustment 40B (FW
40B) to the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan.
New England Fishery Management Council [NEFMC]. 2005. Framework Adjustment 41 (FW
41) to the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan.
New England Fishery Management Council [NEFMC]. 2006. Framework Adjustment 42 (FW
42) to the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan.
Nies, T. A. and A. J. Applegate IV. 2007. Accuracy of Self-Reported Fishing Locations in the
New England Multispecies Trawl Fishery. New England Fishery Management Council;
unpublished manuscript.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Southeast Fisheries Science Center (SEFSC). 2001.
Stock assessments of loggerheads and leatherback sea turtles and an assessment of the
impact of the pelagic longline fishery on the loggerhead and leatherback sea turtles of the
Western North Atlantic. U.S.
NMFS and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1991a. Recovery plan for U.S. population
of loggerhead turtle. National Marine Fisheries Service, Washington, D.C. 64 pp.
NMFS and USFWS. 1991b. Recovery plan for U.S. population of Atlantic green turtle. National
Marine Fisheries Service, Washington, D.C. 58 pp.
NMFS and USFWS. 1992. Recovery plan for leatherback turtles in the U.S. Caribbean, Atlantic,
and Gulf of Mexico. National Marine Fisheries Service, Washington, D.C. 65 pp.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1995.
Status reviews for sea turtles listed under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. National
Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD. 139 pp.
NMFS and USFWS. 2007. Status reviews for sea turtles listed under the Endangered Species Act
of 1973. National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD. Available at:
http://www.fws.gov/northflorida/SeaTurtles/2007-Reviews/2007-sea-turtle-ESAreviews.htm.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2007a.
Loggerhead sea turtle (/Caretta caretta/) 5 year review: summary and evaluation.
National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, Maryland. 65 pp. Available at:
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/listing/reviews.htm.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).
2007b. Leatherback sea turtle (/Dermochelys coriacea/) 5 year review: summary and
evaluation. National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, Maryland. 79 pp.
Available at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/listing/reviews.htm.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2007c.
Kemp’s ridley sea turtle/ (Lepidochelys/ /kempii/) 5 year review: summary and
evaluation. National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, Maryland. 50 pp. Available
at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/listing/reviews.htm.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).
2007d. Green sea turtle (/Chelonia mydas/) 5 year review: summary and evaluation.
National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, Maryland. 102 pp. Available at:
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/listing/reviews.htm.
NMFS. 1998. Recovery Plan for the blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus). Prepared by R.R.
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

876

References
Literature Cited

Reeves, P.J. Clapham, R.L. Brownell, Jr., and G.K. Silber for the National Marine
Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD. 42pp.
NMFS. 2005. Recovery Plan for the North Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena glacialis). National
Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD. 137pp.
NMFS. 1991. Final recovery plan for the humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae). Prepared
by the Humpback Whale Recovery Team for the National Marine Fisheries Service,
Silver Spring, Maryland. 105 pp.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2009c. Correspondence between ENTRIX, Inc and
the Northeast Fisheries Science Center regarding impacts to sea turtles from fishing gear.
Northeast Data Poor Stocks Working Group. 2009. The Northeast Data Poor Stocks Working
Group Report, December 8-12, 2008 Meeting. Part A. Skate species complex, Deep sea
red crab, Atlantic wolfish, Scup, and Black sea bass. US Dept Commer, Northeast Fish
Sci Cent Ref Doc. 09-02; 496 p.
Northeast Fisheries Science Center [NEFSC]. 2002a. Final Report of the Working Group on ReEvaluation of Biological Reference Points for New England Groundfish. National Marine
Fisheries Service, Northeast Fisheries Science Center. 232 p.
Northeast Fisheries Science Center [NEFSC]. 2002b. Workshop on the effects of fishing gear on
marine habitats off the northeastern United States, October 23-25, 2001, Boston,
Massachusetts. U.S. Natl. Mar. Fish. Serv. Northeast Fish. Cent. Woods Hole Lab. Ref.
Doc. 02-01. 86 p.
Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC). 2002c. 34th Northeast Regional Stock Assessment
Workshop (40th SAW) Assessment Report. NEFSC Reference Document 02-07.
Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC). 2004. 38th Northeast Regional Stock Assessment
Workshop (40th SAW) Assessment Report. NEFSC Reference Document 04-03.
Northeast Fisheries Science Center [NEFSC]. 2005. Assessment of 19 Northeast Groundfish
Stocks through 2004. 2005 Groundfish Assessment Review Meeting (GARM II).
Northeast Fish. Cent. Woods Hole Lab. Ref. Doc. 06-13. 508 p.
Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC). 2006a. 42nd Northeast Regional Stock Assessment
Workshop (40th SAW) Assessment Report. NEFSC Reference Document 06-01.
Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC). 2006b. 43rd Northeast Regional Stock Assessment
Workshop (40th SAW) Assessment Report. NEFSC Reference Document 06-25.
Northeast Fisheries Science Center [NEFSC]. 2007a. Report of the Review Panel for the
Northeast Data Poor Stocks Working Group (DPWG): Monkfish. August 14, 2007. 9 p.
Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC). 2007b. 44th Northeast Regional Stock Assessment
Workshop (40th SAW) Assessment Report. NEFSC Reference Document 07-10.
Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC). 2008a. 47th Northeast Regional Stock Assessment
Workshop (40th SAW) Assessment Report. NEFSC Reference Document 08-11.
Northeast Fisheries Science Center [NEFSC]. 2008b. Assessment of 19 Northeast Groundfish
Stocks Through 2007: Report of the 3rd Groundfish Assessment Review Meeting (GARM
III), Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Woods Hole, Massachusetts, August 4 – 8,
2008. Northeast Fish. Cent. Woods Hole Lab. Ref. Doc. 08-15. 867 p.
Northeast Fisheries Science Center [NEFSC]. 2009. Report by the Peer Review Panel for the
Northeast Data Poor Stocks Working Group (DPWG). 20 January 2009. 34 p.
Overholtz, W.J. and A.V. Tyler. 1985. Long-term responses of the demersal fish assemblages of
Georges Bank. Fish. Bull. (U.S.) 83: 507-520.
Palka, D., M. Rossman, A. VanAtten, and C. Orphanides. 2008a. Effect of Pingers on Harbor
Porpoise and Seal Bycatch in the US Northeast Gillnet Fishery. Paper SC/60/SM2
presented to the Scientific Committee, June 2008 (unpublished); 27 pp. Paper available
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

877

References
Literature Cited

from IWC Secretariat: secretariat@iwcoffice.org.
Palka, D.L. and C. D. Orphanides. 2008b. Harbor porpoise bycatch rates that indicate compliance
with pinger regulations for the Northeast gillnet fishery. U.S. Department of Commerce,
Northeast Fisheries Science Center Ref. Doc. 08-10; 13 pp.
Palmer, M. C. and S. E. Wigley. 2007. Validating the Stock Apportionment of Commercial
Fisheries Landings Using Positional Data from Vessel Monitoring Systems (VMS).
Northeast Fisheries Science Center Reference Document CDR 07-22.
Pavlov, D. A., and E. Moksness. 1994. Production and quality of eggs obtained from wolffish
(Anarhincas lupus L.) reared in captivity. Aquaculture. 122:295-312.
Pavlov, D. A., and G. G. Novikov. 1993. Life history peculiarities of common wolffish
(Anarhincas lupus) in the White Sea. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 50:271-277.
Payne, A. I., R. Cook, E. Bell, R. K. Mohn, and M. McAllister. February 3 - 8, 2003. Report on
the Groundfish Science Peer Review Meeting. Center for Independent Experts. Available
at: http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/groundfish/Payne.pdf.
Perrin, W.F., B. Wursig, and J.G.M. Thewissen (eds.). 2002. Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals.
Academic Press, CA.
Perry, S.L., D.P. DeMaster, and G.K. Silber. 1999. The great whales: History and status of six
species listed as endangered under the U.S. Endangered Species Act of 1973. Mar. Fish.
Rev. Special Edition. 61(1): 59-74.
Pol, Michael. 2001. Effects of Trawl Net Modifications During the 2000 Nantucket Sound Squid
Fishery. Conservation Engineering Project Report, Conservation Engineering Program,
Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries. Unpublished manuscript. 21 pp.
Poppe, L.J., J.S. Schlee, B. Butman, and C.M. Lane. 1989a. Map showing distribution of
surficial sediment, Gulf of Maine and Georges Bank. U.S. Dep. Interior, U.S. Geol. Sur.
Misc. Invest. Ser., Map I-1986-A, scale 1:1,000,000.
Poppe, L.J., J.S. Schlee, Knebel H.J. 1989b. Map showing distribution of surficial sediment on
the mid-Atlantic continental margin, Cape Cod to Albemarle sound. U.S. Dep. Interior,
U.S. Geol. Sur. Misc. Invest. Ser., Map I-1987-D, scale 1:1,000,000.
Pratt, S. 1973. Benthic fauna. In Coastal and offshore environmental inventory, Cape Hatteras to
Nantucket Shoals. p. 5-1 to 5-70. Univ. Rhode Island, Mar. Pub. Ser. No. 2. Kingston,
RI.
Reid, R.N. and F.W. Steimle, Jr. 1988. Benthic macrofauna of the middle Atlantic continental
shelf. In A.L. Pacheco, ed. Characterization of the middle Atlantic water management
unit of the northeast regional action plan. p. 125-160. NOAA Tech. Mem. NMFSF/NEC-56. 322 p.
Riget, F. and J. Messtorff. 1988. Distribution, abundance and migration of Atlantic wolffish
(Anarhichas lupus) and spotted wolffish (Anarhichas minor) in west Greenland waters.
NAFO-SCI. Counc. Stud. No. 12:13-20.
Rountree, R.A. 2002. Wolffishes. Family Anarhichadidae. Pages 485-496.
In: Collette, B.B., and G. Klein-MacPhee. (eds.). Bigelow and Schroeder’s Fishes of the
Gulf of Maine. 3rd Edition. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. 748 p.
Rudolph, T. J. Pappalardo, M. Sanderson, H. Milliken, and M. Farrington. 2006. Survival of sublegal Atlantic cod in the Northwest Atlantic longline fishery. NEC Grant 04-827. 30 pp.
Sanchirico, James N., Daniel Holland, Kathryn Quigley, and Mark Fina. 2006. Catch-quota
balancing in multispecies individual fishing quotas. Marine Policy 30: 767-785.
Schmitz, W.J., W.R. Wright, and N.G. Hogg. 1987. Physical oceanography. In J.D. Milliman
and W.R. Wright, eds. The marine environment of the U.S. Atlantic continental slope
and rise. p. 27-56. Jones and Bartlett Publishers Inc., Boston, MA.
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

878

References
Literature Cited

Sears, R. 2002. Blue Whale, Balaenoptera musculus. - In: W.F. Perrin, B. Würsig, and J.G.M.
Thewissen (eds.), Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals. Academic Press, CA. pp.112-116.
Shepard, F.P., N.F. Marshall, P.A. McLonghlin, and F.G. Sullivan. 1979. Currents in submarine
canyons and other sea valleys. Am. Assn. Petrol. Geol., Studies in Geol. No. 8.
Sherman, K., N.A. Jaworski, T.J. Smayda, eds. 1996. The northeast shelf ecosystem –
assessment, sustainability, and management. Blackwell Science, Cambridge, MA. 564
p.
Shoop, C.R. and R.D. Kenney. 1992. Seasonal distributions and abundance of loggerhead and
leatherback sea turtles in waters of the northeastern United States. Herpetol. Monogr. 6:
43-67.
Sigourney, D. B., M. R. Ross, J. Brodziak, and J. Burnett. 2006. Length at age, sexual maturity
and distribution of Atlantic halibut, Hippoglossus hippoglossus L., off the Northeast
USA. J. Northw. Atl. Fish. Sci., 36: 81–90.
Stefansson, Gunnar and Andrew A. Rosenberg. 2005. Combining control measures for more
effective management of fisheries under uncertainty: quotas, effort limitation and
protected areas. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society – B. 360: 133–146.
Steimle, F.W. and C. Zetlin. 2000. Reef habitats in the middle Atlantic bight: abundance,
distribution, associated biological communities, and fishery resource use. Mar. Fish.
Rev. 62: 24-42.
Steimle, F.W., C.A. Zetlin, P.L. Berrien, D.L. Johnson and S. Chang. 1999. Essential fish
habitat source document: tilefish, Lopholatilus chamaeleonticeps, life history and habitat
characteristics. NOAA Tech. Mem. NMFS-NE-152. 30 p.
Stevenson, D., L. Chiarella, D. Stephan, R. Reid, K. Wilhelm, J. McCarthy, and M. Pentony.
2004. Characterization of the fishing practices and marine benthic ecosystems of the
northeast U.S. shelf, and an evaluation of the potential effects of fishing on essential fish
habitat. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NE-181. 179 p.
Stumpf, R.P. and R.B. Biggs. 1988. Surficial morphology and sediments of the continental shelf
of the middle Atlantic bight. In A.L. Pacheco, ed. Characterization of the middle
Atlantic water management unit of the northeast regional action plan. p. 51-72. NOAA
Tech. Mem. NMFS-F/NEC-56. 322 p.
Swingle, W.M., S.G. Barco, T.D. Pitchford, W.A. McLellan, and D.A. Pabst. 1993. Appearance
of juvenile humpback whales feeding in the nearshore waters of Virginia. Mar. Mamm.
Sci. 9: 309-315.
Templeman, W. 1984. Migrations of Wolffishes, Anarhichas sp., from tagging in the
Newfoundland area. J. Northw. Atl. Fish. Sci. 5:93-97.
Templemann, W. 1986. Some biological aspects of Atlantic wolffish (Anarhincas lupus) in the
Northwest Atlantic. J. Northw. Atl. Fish. Sci. 7:57-65.
Theroux, R.B. and M.D. Grosslein. 1987. Benthic fauna. In R.H. Backus and D.W. Bourne, eds.
Georges Bank. p. 283-295. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Theroux, R.B. and R.L. Wigley. 1998. Quantitative composition and distribution of the
macrobenthic invertebrate fauna of the continental shelf ecosystems of the northeastern
United States. NOAA Tech. Rep. NMFS 140. 240 p.
Townsend, D.W. 1992. An overview of the oceanography and biological productivity of the
Gulf of Maine. In D.W. Townsend and P.F. Larsen, eds. The Gulf of Maine. p. 5-26.
NOAA Coast. Ocean Prog. Reg. Synthesis Ser. No. 1. Silver Spring, MD. 135 p.
Tucholke, B.E. 1987. Submarine geology. In J.D. Milliman and W.R. Wright, eds. The marine
environment of the U.S. Atlantic continental slope and rise. p. 56-113. Jones and
Bartlett Publishers Inc., Boston, MA.
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

879

References
Literature Cited

Turris, Bruce and Howard McElderry. 2008. Evaluation of Monitoring and Reporting Needs for
Groundfish Sectors in New England: Phase I Report. Prepared for the Gulf of Maine
Research Institute. April 2008.
Turtle Expert Working Group (TEWG). 1998. An assessment of the Kemp’s ridley (Lepidochelys
kempii) and loggerhead (Caretta caretta) sea turtle populations in the Western North
Atlantic. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-409. 96 pp.
Turtle Expert Working Group (TEWG). 2000. Assessment update for the Kemp’s ridley and
loggerhead sea turtle populations in the western North Atlantic. U.S. Dep. Commer.
NOAA Tech. Mem. NMFS-SEFSC-444, 115 pp.
USFWS and NMFS. 1992. Recovery plan for the Kemp’s ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kempii).
NMFS, St. Petersburg, Florida.
USFWS. 1997. Synopsis of the biological data on the green turtle, Chelonia mydas (Linnaeus
1758). Biological Report 97(1). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 120
pp.
Valentine, P.C. and R.G. Lough. 1991. The sea floor environment and the fishery of eastern
Georges bank. U.S. Dep. Interior, U.S. Geol. Sur. Open File Rep. 91-439. 25 p.
Valentine, P.C., E.W. Strom, R.G. Lough, and C.L. Brown. 1993. Maps showing the
sedimentary environment of eastern Georges bank. U.S. Dep. Interior, U.S. Geol. Sur.
Misc. Invest. Ser., Map I-2279-B, scale 1:250,000.
Waring, G.T., D.L. Palka, P.J. Clapham, S. Swartz, M. Rossman, T. Cole, L.J. Hansen, K.D.
Bisack, K. Mullin, R.S. Wells, D.K. Odell, and N.B. Barros. 1999. U.S. Atlantic and Gulf
of Mexico marine mammal stock assessments - 1999. NOAA Technical Memorandum
NMFS-NE-153.
Waring, G.T., J.M. Quintal, S.L. Swartz, eds. 2002. Draft U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico
marine mammal stock assessments - 2001. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE169.
Waring, G.T., E. Josephson, C.P. Fairfield, and K. Maze-Foley, Editors. 2006. U.S. Atlantic and
Gulf of Mexico Marine Mammal Stock Assessments-2005. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFSNE-194, 352pp.
Waring, G.T., E. Josephson, C.P. Fairfield, and K. Maze-Foley, Editors. 2007. U.S. Atlantic and
Gulf of Mexico Marine Mammal Stock Assessments-2006. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFSNE-201, 378 pp.
Waring, G.T., R.M. Pace, J.M. Quintal, C. P. Fairfield, K. Maze-Foley (eds). 2003. U.S. Atlantic
and Gulf of Mexico marine mammal stock assessments - 2003 . NOAA Technical
Memorandum NMFS-NE-182. 287 p.
Waring, G.T., E. Josephson, C.P. Fairfield-Walsh, and K. Maze-Foley, eds. 2009. Draft U.S.
Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Marine Mammal Stock Assessments – 2009. Available at:
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/draft.htm.
Watling, L. 1998. Benthic fauna of soft substrates in the Gulf of Maine. In E.M. Dorsey and J.
Pederson, eds. Effects of fishing gear on the sea floor of New England. p. 20-29. MIT
Sea Grant Pub. 98-4.
Whitehead, H. 2002. "Sperm whale Physeter macrocephalus". In: W.F. Perrin, B. Würsig, and
J.G.M. Thewissen (eds.), Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals. Academic Press, CA. pp.
1165-1172.
Wiebe, P.H., E.H. Backus, R.H. Backus, D.A. Caron, P.M. Glibert, J.F. Grassle, K. Powers, and
J.B. Waterbury. 1987. Biological oceanography. In J.D. Milliman and W.R. Wright,
eds. The marine environment of the U.S. Atlantic continental slope and rise. p. 140-201.
Jones and Bartlett Publishers Inc., Boston, MA.
Wigley, R.L. and R.B. Theroux. 1981. Atlantic continental shelf and slope of the United States –
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

880

References
Literature Cited

macrobenthic invertebrate fauna of the middle Atlantic bight region – faunal composition
and quantitative distribution. Geol. Surv. Prof. Pap. 529-N. 198 p.
Wiley, D.N., R.A. Asmutis, T.D. Pitchford, and D.P. Gannon. 1995. Stranding and mortality of
humpback whales, Megaptera novaengliae, in the mid-Atlantic and southeast United
States, 1985-1992. Fish. Bull., U.S. 93:196-205.
Worthington, L.V. 1976. On the North Atlantic circulation. Johns Hopkins Ocean. Stud. No. 6.
Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, Baltimore, MD. 110 p.
Wright, W.R. and L.V. Worthington. 1970. The water masses of the North Atlantic Ocean: a
volumetric census of temperature and salinity. Ser. Atlas Mar. Environ., Am. Geol. Soc.
Folio No. 19.
Wynne, K. and M. Schwartz. 1999. Guide to marine mammals and turtles of the U.S. Atlantic
and Gulf of Mexico. Rhode Island Sea Grant, Narragansett. 115pp.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

881

References
Literature Cited

Intentionally Blank

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

882

References
Glossary

10.2 Glossary
Adult stage: One of several marked phases or periods in the development and growth of many
animals. In vertebrates, the life history stage where the animal is capable of reproducing, as
opposed to the juvenile stage.
Adverse effect: Any impact that reduces quality and/or quantity of EFH. May include direct or
indirect physical, chemical, or biological alterations of the waters or substrate and loss of, or
injury to, benthic organisms, prey species and their habitat, and other ecosystem components, if
such modifications reduce the quality and or quantity of EFH. Adverse effects to EFH may result
from actions occurring within EFH or outside of EFH and may include sites-specific of habitat
wide impacts, including individual, cumulative, or synergistic consequences of actions.
Aggregation: A group of animals or plants occurring together in a particular location or region.
Anadromous species: fish that spawn in fresh or estuarine waters and migrate to ocean waters
Amphipods: A small crustacean of the order Amphipoda, such as the beach flea, having a
laterally compressed body with no carapace.
Anaerobic sediment: Sediment characterized by the absence of free oxygen.
Anemones: Any of numerous flowerlike marine coelenterates of the class Anthozoa, having a
flexible cylindrical body and tentacles surrounding a central mouth.
Annual total mortality: Rate of death expressed as the fraction of a cohort dying over a period
compared to the number alive at the beginning of the period (# total deaths during year / numbers
alive at the beginning of the year). Optimists convert death rates into annual survival rate using
the relationship S=1-A.
ASPIC (A Surplus Production Model Incorporating Covariates): A non-equilibrium surplus
production model developed by Prager (1995). ASPIC was frequently used by the Overfishing
Definition Panel to define BMSY and FMSY reference points. The model output was also used to
estimate rebuilding timeframes for the Amendment 9 control rules.
Bay: An inlet of the sea or other body of water usually smaller than a gulf; a small body of water set
off from the main body; e.g. Ipswich Bay in the Gulf of Maine.
Benthic community: Benthic means the bottom habitat of the ocean, and can mean anything as
shallow as a salt marsh or the intertidal zone, to areas of the bottom that are several miles deep in
the ocean. Benthic community refers to those organisms that live in and on the bottom. (In
meaning they live within the substrate; e.g, within the sand or mud found on the bottom. See
Benthic infauna, below)

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

883

References
Glossary

Benthic infauna: See Benthic community, above. Those organisms that live in the bottom
sediments (sand, mud, gravel, etc.) of the ocean. As opposed to benthic epifauna, that live on the
surface of the bottom sediments.
Benthivore: Usually refers to fish that feed on benthic or bottom dwelling organisms.
Berm: A narrow ledge typically at the top or bottom of a slope; e.g. a berm paralleling the shoreline
caused by wave action on a sloping beach; also an elongated mound or wall of earth.
Biogenic habitats: Ocean habitats whose physical structure is created or produced by the animals
themselves; e.g, coral reefs.
Biomass: The total mass of living matter in a given unit area or the weight of a fish stock or
portion thereof. Biomass can be listed for beginning of year (Jan-1), Mid-Year, or mean (average
during the entire year). In addition, biomass can be listed by age group (numbers at age * average
weight at age) or summarized by groupings (e.g., age 1+, ages 4+ 5, etc). See also spawning stock
biomass, exploitable biomass, and mean biomass.
BMSY: The stock biomass that would produce MSY when fished at a fishing mortality rate equal
to FMSY. For most stocks, BMSY is about ½ of the carrying capacity. The proposed overfishing
definition control rules call for action when biomass is below ¼ or ½ BMSY, depending on the
species.
Bthreshold: 1) A limit reference point for biomass that defines an unacceptably low biomass i.e.,
puts a stock at high risk (recruitment failure, depensation, collapse, reduced long term yields, etc).
2) A biomass threshold that the SFA requires for defining when a stock is overfished. A stock is
overfished if its biomass is below Bthreshold. A determination of overfished triggers the SFA
requirement for a rebuilding plan to achieve Btarget as soon as possible, usually not to exceed 10
years except certain requirements are met. In Amendment 9 control rules, Bthreshold is often defined
as either 1/2BMSY or 1/4 BMSY. Bthreshold is also known as Bminimum.
Btarget: A desirable biomass to maintain fishery stocks. This is usually synonymous with BMSY or
its proxy.
Biomass weighted F: A measure of fishing mortality that is defined as an average of fishing
mortality at age weighted by biomass at age for a ranges of ages within the stock (e.g., ages 1+
biomass weighted F is a weighted average of the mortality for ages 1 and older, age 3+ biomass
weighted is a weighted average for ages 3 and older). Biomass weighted F can also be calculated
using catch in weight over mean biomass. See also fully-recruited F.
Biota: All the plant and animal life of a particular region.
Bivalve: A class of mollusks having a soft body with platelike gills enclosed within two shells
hinged together; e.g., clams, mussels.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

884

References
Glossary

Bottom roughness: The inequalities, ridges, or projections on the surface of the seabed that are
caused by the presence of bedforms, sedimentary structures, sedimentary particles, excavations,
attached and unattached organisms, or other objects; generally small scale features.
Bottom tending mobile gear: All fishing gear that operates on or near the ocean bottom that is
actively worked in order to capture fish or other marine species. Some examples of bottom tending
mobile gear are otter trawls and dredges.
Bottom tending static gear: All fishing gear that operates on or near the ocean bottom that I snot
actively worked; instead, the effectiveness of this gear depends on species moving to the gear which
is set in a particular manner by a vessel, and later retrieved. Some examples of bottom tending static
gear are gillnets, traps, and pots.
Boulder reef: An elongated feature (a chain) of rocks (generally piled boulders) on the seabed.
Bryozoans: Phylum aquatic organisms, living for the most part in colonies of interconnected
individuals. A few to many millions of these individuals may form one colony. Some bryozoans
encrust rocky surfaces, shells, or algae others form lacy or fan-like colonies that in some regions
may form an abundant component of limestones. Bryozoan colonies range from millimeters to
meters in size, but the individuals that make up the colonies are rarely larger than a millimeter.
Colonies may be mistaken for hydroids, corals or seaweed.
Burrow: A hole or excavation in the sea floor made by an animal (as a crab, lobster, fish, burrowing
anemone) for shelter and habitation.
Bycatch: (v.) the capture of nontarget species in directed fisheries which occurs because fishing
gear and methods are not selective enough to catch only target species; (n.) fish which are
harvested in a fishery but are not sold or kept for personal use, including economic discards and
regulatory discards but not fish released alive under a recreational catch and release fishery
management program.
Capacity: the level of output a fishing fleet is able to produce given specified conditions and
constraints. Maximum fishing capacity results when all fishing capital is applied over the
maximum amount of available (or permitted) fishing time, assuming that all variable inputs are
utilized efficiently.
Catch: The sum total of fish killed in a fishery in a given period. Catch is given in either weight
or number of fish and may include landings, unreported landings, discards, and incidental deaths.
Closed Area Model (CAM): A General Algebraic Modeling System (GAMS) model used to
evaluate the effectiveness of effort controls used in the Northeast Multispecies Fishery. Using
catch data from vessels in the fishery, the model estimates changes in exploitation that may result
from changes in DAS, closed areas, and possession limits. These changes in exploitation are then
converted to changes in fishing mortality to evaluate proposed measures.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

885

References
Glossary

Coarse sediment: Sediment generally of the sand and gravel classes; not sediment composed
primarily of mud; but the meaning depends on the context, e.g. within the mud class, silt is coarser
than clay.
Commensalism: See Mutualism. An interactive association of two species where one benefits in
some way, while the other species is in no way affected by the association.
Continental shelf waters: The waters overlying the continental shelf, which extends seaward from
the shoreline and deepens gradually to the point where the sea floor begins a slightly steeper descent
to the deep ocean floor; the depth of the shelf edge varies, but is approximately 200 meters in many
regions.
Control rule: A pre-determined method for determining fishing mortality rates based on the
relationship of current stock biomass to a biomass target. Amendment 9 overfishing control rules
define a target biomass (BMSY or proxy) as a management objective. The biomass threshold
(Bthreshold or Bmin) defines a minimum biomass below which a stock is considered overfished.
Cohort: see yearclass.
Crustaceans: Invertebrates characterized by a hard outer shell and jointed appendages and
bodies. They usually live in water and breathe through gills. Higher forms of this class include
lobsters, shrimp and crawfish; lower forms include barnacles.
Data Poor Working Group (DPWG): A standing assessment panel assembled to address stocks
with limited or poor data. Two reports have been prepared as of the submission of this document.
Days absent: an estimate by port agents of trip length. This data was collected as part of the
NMFS weighout system prior to May 1, 1994.
Days-at-sea (DAS): the total days, including steaming time that a boat spends at sea to fish.
Amendment 13 categorized DAS for the multispecies fishery into three categories, based on each
individual vessel’s fishing history during the period fishing year 1996 through 2001. The three
categories are: Category A: can be used to target any groundfish stock; Category B: can only be
used to target healthy stocks; Category C: cannot be used until some point in the future. Category
B DAS are further divided equally into Category B (regular) and Category B (reserve).
DAS “flip”: A practice in the Multispecies FMP that occurs when a vessel fishing on a Category
B (regular) DAS must change (“flip”) its DAS to a Category A DAS because it has exceeded a
catch limit for a stock of concern.
Demersal species: Most often refers to fish that live on or near the ocean bottom. They are often
called benthic fish, groundfish, or bottom fish.
Diatoms: Small mobile plants (algæ) with silicified (silica, sand, quartz) skeletons. They are
among the most abundant phytoplankton in cold waters, and an important part of the food chain.
Discards: animals returned to sea after being caught; see Bycatch (n.)
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

886

References
Glossary

Dissolved nutrients: Non-solid nutrients found in a liquid.
Echinoderms: A member of the Phylum Echinodermata. Marine animals usually characterized
by a five-fold symmetry, and possessing an internal skeleton of calcite plates, and a complex
water vascular system. Includes echinoids (sea urchins), crinoids (sea lillies) and asteroids
(starfish).
Ecosystem-based management: a management approach that takes major ecosystem
components and services—both structural and functional—into account, often with a multispecies
or habitat perspective
Egg stage: One of several marked phases or periods in the development and growth of many
animals. The life history stage of an animal that occurs after reproduction and refers to the
developing embryo, its food store, and sometimes jelly or albumen, all surrounded by an outer
shell or membrane. Occurs before the larval or juvenile stage.
Elasmobranch: Any of numerous fishes of the class Chondrichthyes characterized by a
cartilaginous skeleton and placoid scales: sharks; rays; skates.
Embayment: A bay or an indentation in a coastline resembling a bay.
Emergent epifauna: See Epifauna. Animals living upon the bottom that extend a certain distance
above the surface.
Epifauna: See Benthic infauna. Epifauna are animals that live on the surface of the substrate, and
are often associated with surface structures such as rocks, shells, vegetation, or colonies of other
animals.
Essential Fish Habitat (EFH): Those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding,
feeding, or growth to maturity. The EFH designation for most managed species in this region is
based on a legal text definition and geographical area that are described in the Habitat Omnibus
Amendment (1998).
Estuarine area: The area of an estuary and its margins; an area characterized by environments
resulting from the mixing of river and sea water.
Estuary: A water passage where the tide meets a river current; especially an arm of the sea at the
lower end of a river; characterized by an environment where the mixing of river and seawater causes
marked variations in salinity and temperature in a relatively small area.
Eutrophication: A set of physical, chemical, and biological changes brought about when
excessive nutrients are released into the water.
Euphotic zone: The zone in the water column where at least 1% of the incident light at the
surface penetrates.
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

887

References
Glossary

Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ): a zone in which the inner boundary is a line coterminous with
the seaward boundary of each of the coastal States and the outer boundary is line 200 miles away
and parallel to the inner boundary
Exempt fisheries: Any fishery determined by the Regional Director to have less than 5 percent
regulated species as a bycatch (by weight) of total catch according to 50 CFR 648.80(a)(7).
Exploitable biomass: The biomass of fish in the portion of the population that is vulnerable to
fishing.
Exploitation pattern: Describes the fishing mortality at age as a proportion of fully recruited F
(full vulnerability to the fishery). Ages that are fully vulnerable experience 100% of the fully
recruited F and are termed fully recruited. Ages that are only partially vulnerable experience a
fraction of the fully recruited F and are termed partially recruited. Ages that are not vulnerable to
the fishery (including discards) experience no mortality and are considered pre-recruits. Also
known as the partial recruitment pattern, partial recruitment vector or fishery selectivity.
Exploitation rate (u): The fraction of fish in the exploitable population killed during the year by
fishing. This is an annual rate compared to F, which is an instantaneous rate. For example, if a
population has 1,000,000 fish large enough to be caught and 550,000 are caught (landed and
discarded) then the exploitation rate is 55%.
Fathom: A measure of length, containing six feet; the space to which a man can extend his arms;
used chiefly in measuring cables, cordage, and the depth of navigable water by soundings.
Fishing mortality (F): A measurement of the rate of removal of fish from a population caused by
fishing. This is usually expressed as an instantaneous rate (F) and is the rate at which fish are
harvested at any given point in a year. Instantaneous fishing mortality rates can be either fully
recruited or biomass weighted. Fishing mortality can also be expressed as an exploitation rate
(see exploitation rate) or less commonly, as a conditional rate of fishing mortality (m, fraction of
fish removed during the year if no other competing sources of mortality occurred. Lower case m
should not be confused with upper case M, the instantaneous rate of natural mortality).
F0.1: a conservative fishing mortality rate calculated as the F associated with 10 percent of the
slope at origin of the yield-per-recruit curve.
FMAX: a fishing mortality rate that maximizes yield per recruit. FMAX is less conservative than
F0.1.
FMSY: a fishing mortality rate that would produce MSY when the stock biomass is sufficient for
producing MSY on a continuing basis.
Fthreshold: 1) The maximum fishing mortality rate allowed on a stock and used to define
overfishing for status determination. Amendment 9 frequently uses FMSY or FMSY proxy for
Fthreshold. 2) The maximum fishing mortality rate allowed for a given biomass as defined by a
control rule.
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

888

References
Glossary

Fishing effort: the amount of time and fishing power used to harvest fish. Fishing power is a
function of gear size, boat size and horsepower.
Framework adjustments: adjustments within a range of measures previously specified in a
fishery management plan (FMP). A change usually can be made more quickly and easily by a
framework adjustment than through an amendment. For plans developed by the New England
Council, the procedure requires at least two Council meetings including at least one public
hearing and an evaluation of environmental impacts not already analyzed as part of the FMP.
Furrow: A trench in the earth made by a plow; something that resembles the track of a plow, as a
marked narrow depression; a groove with raised edges.
GARM: The monstrous hound Garm guards the entrance to Helheim, the Norse realm of the
dead. It has four eyes and a chest drenched with blood. Also: Groundfish Assessment Review
Meeting; peer reviewed assessment of groundfish stock managed by the Northeast Multispecies
Fishery Management Plan. There have been three GARM cycles. GARM III was a series of four
peer reviewed meetings held in 2007 and 2008. The final meeting evaluated stock status and
provides the scientific basis for this management action.
Glacial moraine: A sedimentary feature deposited from glacial ice; characteristically composed of
unsorted clay, sand, and gravel. Moraines typically are hummocky or ridge-shaped and are located
along the sides and at the fronts of glaciers.
Glacial till: Unsorted sediment (clay, sand, and gravel mixtures) deposited from glacial ice.
Grain size: the size of individual sediment particles that form a sediment deposit; particles are
separated into size classes (e.g. very fine sand, fine sand, medium sand, among others); the classes
are combined into broader categories of mud, sand, and gravel; a sediment deposit can be composed
of few to many different grain sizes.
Growth overfishing: Fishing at an exploitation rate or at an age at entry that reduces potential
yields from a cohort but does not reduce reproductive output (see recruitment overfishing).
Halocline: The zone of the ocean in which salinity increases rapidly with depth.
Habitat complexity: Describes or measures a habitat in terms of the variability of its characteristics
and its functions, which can be biological, geological, or physical in nature. Refers to how complex
the physical structure of the habitat is. A bottom habitat with structure-forming organisms, along
with other three dimensional objects such as boulders, is more complex than a flat, featureless,
bottom.
Highly migratory species: tuna species, marlin, oceanic sharks, sailfishes, and swordfish
Hydroids: Generally, animals of the Phylum Cnidaria, Class Hydrozoa; most hydroids are bushlike polyps growing on the bottom and feed on plankton, they reproduce asexually and sexually.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

889

References
Glossary

Immobile epifaunal species: See epifauna. Animals living on the surface of the bottom substrate
that, for the most part, remain in one place.
Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ): federal permit under a limited access system to harvest a
quantity of fish, expressed by a unit or units representing a percentage of the total allowable catch
of a fishery that may be received or held for exclusive use by an individual person or entity
Juvenile stage: One of several marked phases or periods in the development and growth of many
animals. The life history stage of an animal that comes between the egg or larval stage and the
adult stage; juveniles are considered immature in the sense that they are not yet capable of
reproducing, yet they differ from the larval stage because they look like smaller versions of the
adults.
Landings: The portion of the catch that is harvested for personal use or sold.
Land runoff: The part of precipitation, snowmelt, or irrigation water that reaches streams (and
thence the sea) by flowing over the ground, or the portion of rain or snow that does not percolate
into the ground and is discharged into streams instead.
Larvae stage: One of several marked phases or periods in the development and growth of many
animals. The first stage of development after hatching from the egg for many fish and
invertebrates. This life stage looks fundamentally different than the juvenile and adult stages, and
is incapable of reproduction; it must undergo metamorphosis into the juvenile or adult shape or
form.
Lethrinids: Fish of the genus Lethrinus, commonly called emperors or nor'west snapper, are
found mainly in Australia's northern tropical waters. Distinctive features of Lethrinids include
thick lips, robust canine teeth at the front of the jaws, molar-like teeth at the side of the jaws and
cheeks without scales. Lethrinids are carnivorous bottom-feeding fish with large, strong jaws.
Limited-access permits: permits issued to vessels that met certain qualification criteria by a
specified date (the "control date").
Lutjanids: Fish of the genus of the Lutjanidae: snappers. Marine; rarely estuarine. Some species
do enter freshwater for feeding. Tropical and subtropical: Atlantic, Indian and Pacific Oceans.
Macrobenthos: See Benthic community and Benthic infauna. Benthic organisms whose shortest
dimension is greater than or equal to 0.5 mm.
Maturity ogive: A mathematical model used to describe the proportion mature at age for the
entire population. A50 is the age where 50% of the fish are mature.
Mean biomass: The average number of fish within an age group alive during a year multiplied
by average weight at age of that age group. The average number of fish during the year is a
function of starting stock size and mortality rate occurring during the year. Mean biomass can be
aggregated over several ages to describe mean biomass for the stock. For example the mean

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

890

References
Glossary

biomass summed for ages 1 and over is the 1+ mean biomass; mean biomass summed across ages
3 and over is 3+ mean biomass.
Megafaunal species: The component of the fauna of a region that comprises the larger animals,
sometimes defined as those weighing more than 100 pounds.
Mesh selectivity ogive: A mathematical model used to describe the selectivity of a mesh size
(proportion of fish at a specific length retained by mesh) for the entire population. L25 is the
length where 25% of the fish encountered are retained by the mesh. L50 is the length where 50%
of the fish encountered are retained by the mesh.
Meter: A measure of length, equal to 39.37 English inches, the standard of linear measure in the
metric system of weights and measures. It was intended to be, and is very nearly, the ten millionth
part of the distance from the equator to the north pole, as ascertained by actual measurement of an
arc of a meridian.
Metric ton: A unit of weight equal to a thousand kilograms (1kgs = 2.2 lbs.). A metric ton is
equivalent to 2,205 lbs. A thousand metric tons is equivalent to 2.2 million lbs.
Microalgal: Small microscopic types of algae such as the green algae.
Microbial: Microbial means of or relating to microorganisms.
Minimum spawning stock threshold: the minimum spawning stock size (or biomass) below
which there is a significantly lower chance that the stock will produce enough new fish to sustain
itself over the long term.
Mobile organisms: organisms that are not confined or attached to one area or place, that can
move on their own, are capable of movement, or are moved (often passively) by the action of the
physical environment (waves, currents, etc.).
Molluscs: Common term for animals of the phylum Mollusca. Includes groups such as the
bivalves (mussels, oysters etc.), cephalopods (squid, octopus etc.) and gastropods (abalone,
snails). Over 80,000 species in total with fossils back to the Cambrian period.
Mortality: see Annual total mortality (A), Exploitation rate (u), Fishing mortality (F), Natural
mortality (M), and instantaneous total mortality (Z).
Motile: Capable of self-propelled movement. A term that is sometimes used to distinguish
between certain types of organisms found in water.
Multispecies: the group of species managed under the Northeast Multispecies Fishery
Management Plan. This group includes whiting, red hake and ocean pout plus the regulated
species (cod, haddock, pollock, yellowtail flounder, winter flounder, witch flounder, American
plaice, windowpane flounder, white hake and redfish).

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

891

References
Glossary

Mutualism: See Commensalism. A symbiotic interaction between two species in which both
derive some benefit.
Natural disturbance: A change caused by natural processes; e.g. in the case of the seabed, changes
can be caused by the removal or deposition of sediment by currents; such natural processes can be
common or rare at a particular site.
Natural mortality: A measurement of the rate of death from all causes other than fishing such as
predation, disease, starvation, and pollution. Commonly expressed as an instantaneous rate (M).
The rate of natural mortality varies from species to species, but is assumed to be M=0.2 for the
five critical stocks. The natural mortality rate can also be expressed as a conditional rate (termed
n and not additive with competing sources of mortality such as fishing) or as annual expectation
of natural death (termed v and additive with other annual expectations of death).
Nearshore area: The area extending outward an indefinite but usually short distance from shore; an
area commonly affected by tides and tidal and storm currents, and shoreline processes.
Nematodes: a group of elongated, cylindrical worms belonging to the phylum Nematoidea, also
called thread-worms or eel-worms. Some non-marine species attack roots or leaves of plants,
others are parasites on animals or insects.
Nemerteans: Proboscis worms belonging to the phylum Nemertea, and are soft unsegmented
marine worms that have a threadlike proboscis and the ability to stretch and contract.
Nemipterids: Fishes of the Family Nemipteridae, the threadfin breams or whiptail breams.
Distribution: Tropical and sub-tropical Indo-West Pacific.
Northeast Shelf Ecosystem: The Northeast U.S. Shelf Ecosystem has been described as
including the area from the Gulf of Maine south to Cape Hatteras, extending from the coast
seaward to the edge of the continental shelf, including the slope sea offshore to the Gulf Stream.
Northwest Atlantic Analysis Area (NAAA): A spatial area developed for analysis purposes only.
The boundaries of this the area are within the 500 fathom line to the east, the coastline to the west,
the Hague line to the north, and the North Carolina/ South Carolina border to the south. The area is
approximately 83,550 square nautical miles, and is used as the denominator in the EFH analysis to
determine the percent of sediment, EFH, and biomass contained in an area, as compared to the total
NAAA.
Nutrient budgets: An accounting of nutrient inputs to and production by a defined ecosystem
(e.g., salt marsh, estuary) versus utilization within and export from the ecosystem.
Observer: any person required or authorized to be carried on a vessel for conservation and
management purposes by regulations or permits under this Act
Oligochaetes: See Polychaetes. Oligochaetes are worms in the phylum Annelida having bristles
borne singly along the length of the body.
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

892

References
Glossary

Open access: describes a fishery or permit for which there is no qualification criteria to
participate. Open-access permits may be issued with restrictions on fishing (for example, the type
of gear that may be used or the amount of fish that may be caught).
Opportunistic species: Species that colonize disturbed or polluted sediments. These species are
often small, grow rapidly, have short life spans, and produce many offspring.
Optimum Yield (OY): the amount of fish which A) will provide the greatest overall benefit to
the nation, particularly with respect to food production and recreational opportunities, and taking
into account the protection of marine ecosystems; B) is prescribed as such on the basis of the
maximum sustainable yield from the fishery, as reduced by any relevant economic, social, or
ecological factor; and C) in the case of an overfished fishery, provides for rebuilding to a level
consistent with producing the maximum sustainable yield in such fishery
Organic matter: Material of, relating to, or derived from living organisms.
Overfished: A conditioned defined when stock biomass is below minimum biomass threshold
and the probability of successful spawning production is low.
Overfishing: A level or rate of fishing mortality that jeopardizes the long-term capacity of a
stock or stock complex to produce MSY on a continuing basis.
Peat bank: A bank feature composed of partially carbonized, decomposed vegetable tissue formed
by partial decomposition of various plants in water; may occur along shorelines.
Pelagic gear: Mobile or static fishing gear that is not fixed, and is used within the water column, not
on the ocean bottom. Some examples are mid-water trawls and pelagic longlines.
Phytoplankton: Microscopic marine plants (mostly algae and diatoms) which are responsible for
most of the photosynthetic activity in the oceans.
Piscivore: A species feeding preferably on fish.
Planktivore: An animal that feeds on plankton.
Polychaetes: Polychaetes are segmented worms in the phylum Annelida. Polychaetes
(poly-chaetae = many-setae) differ from other annelids in having many setae (small bristles held
in tight bundles) on each segment.
Porosity: The amount of free space in a volume of a material; e.g. the space that is filled by water
between sediment particles in a cubic centimeter of seabed sediment.
Possession-limit-only permit: an open-access permit (see above) that restricts the amount of
multispecies a vessel may retain (currently 500 pounds of "regulated species").

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

893

References
Glossary

Pre-recruits: Fish in size or age groups that are not vulnerable to the fishery (including
discards).
Prey availability: The availability or accessibility of prey (food) to a predator. Important for
growth and survival.
Primary production: The synthesis of organic materials from inorganic substances by
photosynthesis.
Recovery time: The period of time required for something (e.g. a habitat) to achieve its former state
after being disturbed.
Recruitment: the amount of fish added to the fishery each year due to growth and/or migration
into the fishing area. For example, the number of fish that grow to become vulnerable to fishing
gear in one year would be the recruitment to the fishery. “Recruitment” also refers to new year
classes entering the population (prior to recruiting to the fishery).
Recruitment overfishing: fishing at an exploitation rate that reduces the population biomass to a
point where recruitment is substantially reduced.
Regulated groundfish species: cod, haddock, pollock, yellowtail flounder, winter flounder,
witch flounder, American plaice, windowpane flounder, white hake and redfish. These species are
usually targeted with large-mesh net gear.
Relative exploitation: an index of exploitation derived by dividing landings by trawl survey
biomass. This measure does not provide an absolute magnitude of exploitation but allows for
general statements about trends in exploitation.
Retrospective pattern: A pattern of systematic over-estimation or underestimation of terminal
year estimates of stock size, biomass or fishing mortality compared to that estimate for that same
year when it occurs in pre-terminal years.
Riverine area: The area of a river and its banks.
Saurids: Fish of the family Scomberesocidae, the sauries or needlefishes. Distribution: tropical
and temperate waters.
Scavenging species: An animal that consumes dead organic material.
Sea whips: A coral that forms long flexible structures with few or no branches and is common on
Atlantic reefs.
Sea pens: An animal related to corals and sea anemones with a featherlike form.
Sediment: Material deposited by water, wind, or glaciers.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

894

References
Glossary

Sediment suspension: The process by which sediments are suspended in water as a result of
disturbance.
Sedentary: See Motile and Mobile organisms. Not moving. Organisms that spend the majority of
their lives in one place.
Sedimentary bedforms: Wave-like structures of sediment characterized by crests and troughs that
are formed on the seabed or land surface by the erosion, transport, and deposition of particles by
water and wind currents; e.g. ripples, dunes.
Sedimentary structures: Structures of sediment formed on the seabed or land surface by the
erosion, transport, and deposition of particles by water and wind currents; e.g. ripples, dunes,
buildups around boulders, among others.
Sediment types: Major combinations of sediment grain sizes that form a sediment deposit, e.g. mud,
sand, gravel, sandy gravel, muddy sand, among others.
Spawning adult stage: See adult stage. Adults that are currently producing or depositing eggs.
Spawning stock biomass (SSB): the total weight of fish in a stock that sexually mature, i.e., are
old enough to reproduce.
Species assemblage: Several species occurring together in a particular location or region
Species composition: A term relating the relative abundance of one species to another using a
common measurement; the proportion (percentage) of various species in relation to the total on a
given area.
Species diversity: The number of different species in an area and their relative abundance
Species richness: See Species diversity. A measurement or expression of the number of species
present in an area; the more species present, the higher the degree of species richness.
Species with vulnerable EFH: If a species was determined to be “highly” or “moderately”
vulnerable to bottom tending gears (otter trawls, scallop dredges, or clam dredges) then it was
included in the list of species with vulnerable EFH. Currently there are 23 species and life stages
that are considered to have vulnerable EFH for this analysis.
Status Determination: A determination of stock status relative to Bthreshold (defines overfished)
and Fthreshold (defines overfishing). A determination of either overfished or overfishing triggers a
SFA requirement for rebuilding plan (overfished), ending overfishing (overfishing) or both.
Stock: A grouping of fish usually based on genetic relationship, geographic distribution and
movement patterns. A region may have more than one stock of a species (for example, Gulf of
Maine cod and Georges Bank cod). A species, subspecies, geographical grouping, or other
category of fish capable of management as a unit.
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

895

References
Glossary

Stock assessment: determining the number (abundance/biomass) and status (life-history
characteristics, including age distribution, natural mortality rate, age at maturity, fecundity as a
function of age) of individuals in a stock
Stock of concern: a regulated groundfish stock that is overfished, or subject to overfishing.
Structure-forming organisms: Organisms, such as corals, colonial bryozoans, hydroids,
sponges, mussel beds, oyster beds, and seagrass that by their presence create a three-dimensional
physical structure on the bottom. See biogenic habitats.
Submerged aquatic vegetation: Rooted aquatic vegetation, such as seagrasses, that cannot
withstand excessive drying and therefore live with their leaves at or below the water surface in
shallow areas of estuaries where light can penetrate to the bottom sediments. SAV provides an
important habitat for young fish and other aquatic organisms.
Surficial sediment: Sediment forming the sea floor or land surface; thickness of the surficial
layer may vary.
Surplus production: Production of new stock biomass defined by recruitment plus somatic
growth minus biomass loss due to natural deaths. The rate of surplus production is directly
proportional to stock biomass and its relative distance from the maximum stock size at carrying
capacity (K). BMSY is often defined as the biomass that maximizes surplus production rate.
Surplus production models: A family of analytical models used to describe stock dynamics
based on catch in weight and CPUE time series (fishery dependent or survey) to construct stock
biomass history. These models do not require catch at age information. Model outputs may
include stock biomass history, biomass weighted fishing mortality rates, MSY, FMSY, BMSY, K,
(maximum population biomass where stock growth and natural deaths are balanced) and r
(intrinsic rate of increase).
Survival rate (S): Rate of survival expressed as the fraction of a cohort surviving the a period
compared to number alive at the beginning of the period (# survivors at the end of the year /
numbers alive at the beginning of the year). Pessimists convert survival rates into annual total
mortality rate using the relationship A=1-S.
Survival ratio (R/SSB): an index of the survivability from egg to age-of-recruitment. Declining
ratios suggest that the survival rate from egg to age-of-recruitment is declining.
TAC: Total allowable catch. This value is calculated by applying a target fishing mortality rate to
exploitable biomass.
Taxa: The plural of taxon. Taxon is a named group or organisms of any rank, such as a particular
species, family, or class.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

896

References
Glossary

Ten-minute- “squares” of latitude and longitude (TMS): Are a measure of geographic space. The
actual size of a ten-minute-square varies depending on where it is on the surface of the earth, but in
general each square is approximately 70-80 square nautical miles in this region. This is the spatial
area that EFH designations, biomass data, and some of the effort data have been binned into for
analysis purposes in various sections of this document.
Topography: The depiction of the shape and elevation of land and sea floor surfaces.
Total Allowable Catch (TAC): The amount (in metric tons) of a stock that is permitted to be
caught during a fishing year. In the Multispecies FMP, TACs can either be “hard” (fishing ceases
when the TAC is caught) or a “target” (the TAC is merely used as an indicator to monitor
effectiveness of management measures, but does not trigger a closure of the fishery).
Total mortality: The rate of mortality from all sources (fishing, natural, pollution) Total
mortality can be expressed as an instantaneous rate (called Z and equal to F + M) or Annual rate
(called A and calculated as the ratio of total deaths in a year divided by number alive at the
beginning of the year)
Trophic guild: Trophic is defined as the feeding level within a system that an organism occupies;
e.g., predator, herbivore. A guild is defined as a group of species that exploit the same class of
environmental resources in a similar way. The trophic guild is a utilitarian concept covering both
structure and organization that exists between the structural categories of trophic groups and
species.
Turbidity: Relative water clarity; a measurement of the extent to which light passing through
water is reduced due to suspended materials.
Two-bin (displacement) model: a model used to estimate the effects of area closures. This
model assumes that effort from the closed areas (first bin) is displaced to the open areas (second
bin). The total effort in the system is then applied to the landings-per-unit-effort (LPUE) in open
areas to obtain a projected catch. The percent reduction in catch is calculated as a net result.
Valued Ecosystem Component: A resource or environmental feature that is important (not only
economically) to a local human population, or has a national or international profile, or if altered
from its existing status, will be important for the evaluation of environmental impacts of
industrial developments, and the focusing of administrative efforts.
Vulnerability: In order to evaluate the potential adverse effects of fishing on EFH, the vulnerability
of each species EFH was determined. This analysis defines vulnerability as the likelihood that the
functional value of EFH would be adversely affected as a result of fishing with different gear types.
A number of criteria were considered in the evaluation of the vulnerability of EFH for each life stage
including factors like the function of habitat for shelter, food and/or reproduction.
Yield-per-recruit (YPR): the expected yield (weight) of individual fish calculated for a given
fishing mortality rate and exploitation pattern and incorporating the growth characteristics and
natural mortality.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

897

References
Glossary

Yearclass: also called cohort. Fish that were spawned in the same year. By convention, the “birth
date” is set to January 1st and a fish must experience a summer before turning 1. For example,
winter flounder that were spawned in February-April 1997 are all part of the 1997 cohort (or
year-class). They would be considered age 0 in 1997, age 1 in 1998, etc. A summer flounder
spawned in October 1997 would have its birth date set to the following January 1 and would be
considered age 0 in 1998, age 1 in 1999, etc.
Z: instantaneous rate of total mortality. The components of Z are additive (i.e., Z = F+M)
Zooplankton: See Phytoplankton. Small, often microscopic animals that drift in currents. They
feed on detritus, phytoplankton, and other zooplankton. They are preyed upon by fish, shellfish,
whales, and other zooplankton.

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

898

References
List of Public Meetings

10.3 List of Public Meetings
Date

Meeting Type

Location

Council Meeting

Holiday Inn, Peabody, MA

11/6/2006

Oversight Committee

Holiday Inn, Peabody, MA

11/27/2006

Groundfish A16 Scoping Hearing

Holiday Inn, Ellsworth, ME

11/28/2006

Groundfish A16 Scoping Hearing

Eastland Park Hotel, Portland, ME

11/29/2006

Groundfish A16 Scoping Hearing

Urban Forestry Ctr., Portsmouth, NH

11/30/2006

Groundfish A16 Scoping Hearing

MA DMF, Gloucester, MA

12/5/2006

Groundfish A16 Scoping Hearing

Best Western East End, Riverhead,
NY

12/7/2006

Groundfish A16 Scoping Hearing

Holiday Inn Express, Fairhaven, MA

12/12/2006

Groundfish A16 Scoping Hearing

Skyline Hotel, New York, NY

1/18/2007

Oversight Committee

Holiday Inn, Mansfield, Mansfield, MA

1/11/2004

PDT conference call

2/6-2/8/07

Council Meeting

Sheraton Harborside, Portsmouth, NH

PDT Meeting

Falmouth Tech Park, Falmouth, MA

Council Meeting

Mystic Hilton, Mystic, CT

4/20/2007

Oversight Committee

Holiday Inn, Peabody, MA

5/29/2007

Advisory Panel

Holiday Inn, Mansfield, Mansfield, MA

5/31/2007

Oversight Committee (joint with
Monkfish)

Providence Biltmore, Providence, RI

Council Meeting

Eastland Park Hotel, Portland, ME

2006
9/26-9/28/2006

2007

3/7/2007
4/10-4/12/07

6/19-6/21/07
6/26/2007

PDT conference call

7/25/2007

PDT Meeting

Holiday Inn, Mansfield, Mansfield, MA

8/1/2007

Oversight Committee

Holiday Inn, Peabody, MA

8/21/2007

PDT conference call

9/5/2007

Oversight Committee

Holiday Inn, Peabody, MA

Council

Radisson Hotel, Plymouth, MA

10/2/2007

PDT

MA Audubon, Newburyport, MA

10/16/2007

Oversight Committee

Holiday Inn, Peabody, MA

10/22/2007

PDT

Holiday Inn, Mansfield, Mansfield, MA

Council Meeting

Hotel Viking, Newport, MA

PDT

Holiday Inn, Mansfield, Mansfield, MA

9/18-9/19/07

11/6-11/7/07
12/6/2007

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

899

References
List of Public Meetings
Date

Meeting Type

Location

12/12-12/13/07

Oversight Committee

Holiday Inn, Peabody, MA

1/9/2008

PDT

Starboard Galley, Newburyport, MA

1/17/07-8

Oversight Committee

Holiday Inn, Peabody, MA

1/24/2008

Council Meeting

Sheraton Ferncroft, Danvers, MA

1/22/2008

PDT conference call

2/11/2008

Oversight Committee

Courtyard by Marriot, Portsmouth, NH

Council Meeting

Sheraton Harborside, Portsmouth, NH

3/19/2008

PDT Meeting

Holiday Inn, Mansfield, MA

3/27/2008

Oversight Committee

Holiday Inn by the Bay, Portland, ME

4/8/2008

PDT Meeting

Holiday Inn, Mansfield, MA

Council Meeting

Providence Biltmore, Providence, RI

5/13/2008

Oversight Committee

Holiday Inn, Peabody, MA

5/15/2008

PDT conference call

5/16/2008

PDT conference call

5/20/2008

Recreational Advisory Panel

Holiday Inn, Peabody, MA

5/27/2008

Advisory Panel

Holiday Inn, Peabody, MA

6/2/2008

Oversight Committee

Holiday Inn by the Bay, Portland, ME

Council Meeting

Holiday Inn by the Bay, Portland, ME

2008

2/12/082/14/08

4/15-4/17/08

6/3-6/5/08
7/1/2008

PDT conference call

7/17/2008

Oversight Committee

Holiday Inn, Peabody, MA

8/13/2008

PDT Meeting

MA Audubon, Newburyport, MA

8/21/2008

PDT conference call

8/26/2008

Oversight Committee

Holiday Inn, Peabody, MA

9/3-9/4/08

Council Meeting

Providence Biltmore, Providence, RI

9/11/2008

PDT conference call

9/16/2008

Advisory Panel

Sheraton Ferncroft, Danvers, MA

9/17/2008

Recreational Advisory Panel

Sheraton Ferncroft, Danvers, MA

9/29/2008

Oversight Committee

Holiday Inn, Peabody, MA

10/15/2008

PDT conference call

10/22/2008

PDT conference call

10/30/2008

Oversight Committee

Sheraton Harborside, Portsmouth, NH

Council Meeting

Sheraton Ferncroft, Danvers, MA

11/18-1/20/08

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

900

References
List of Public Meetings
Date

Meeting Type

Location

2009
1/5/2009

PDT conference call

1/29/2009

Oversight Committee

Holiday Inn, Mansfield, MA

2/9-2/11/09

Council Meeting

Sheraton Harborside, Portsmouth, NH

4/7-4/9/09

Council Meeting

Mystic Hilton, Mystic, CT

5/26/2009

Advisory Panel

Sheraton Colonial, Wakefield, MA

5/27/2009

Recreational Advisory Panel

Sheraton Colonial, Wakefield, MA

6/4/2009

PDT

Holiday Inn, Mansfield, MA

6/17/2009

Oversight Committee

Holiday Inn, Mansfield, MA

Council Meeting

Holiday Inn by the Bay, Portland, ME

6/22-6/25/09

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

901

References
Index

10.4 Index
A
Accountability Measure
AM ....8, 66, 91, 93, 132, 148, 150, 154, 155, 168, 169, 217, 218, 219, 376, 378, 382, 383, 510, 534, 550,
552, 553, 554, 581, 582, 594, 683, 710, 711, 712, 713, 720, 742, 743, 744, 745, 746, 772, 790
Affected Human Environment.............................................................................307, 308, 334, 465, 748, 749
Annual Catch Limit
ACL.8, 56, 66, 75, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 106, 125, 126, 127, 132, 148, 149, 150, 154, 155, 156, 157,
168, 169, 194, 195, 217, 218, 219, 309, 385, 480, 500, 505, 510, 541, 543, 550, 551, 552, 553, 581,
594, 628, 632, 683, 690, 706, 708, 709, 710, 711, 720, 740, 742, 744, 745, 746, 769, 771, 773, 781,
786, 790, 791
B
Biological Impacts.14, 362, 484, 485, 502, 503, 510, 511, 512, 517, 522, 523, 527, 528, 539, 540, 542, 543,
553, 561, 563, 566, 567, 569, 578, 579, 580, 619, 702, 710, 741, 744
Bycatch.................................................................. 54, 109, 434, 435, 437, 444, 458, 836, 873, 875, 885, 886
C
Cod
GB.54, 55, 58, 69, 71, 85, 89, 103, 105, 126, 127, 128, 131, 140, 148, 150, 157, 175, 187, 195, 208, 270,
274, 311, 338, 375, 379, 384, 385, 436, 484, 489, 496, 514, 516, 525, 528, 542, 543, 551, 553, 555,
556, 572, 573, 574, 633, 692, 708, 730, 739, 836
GOM53, 55, 57, 58, 69, 79, 82, 85, 127, 128, 134, 138, 139, 168, 175, 196, 204, 208, 214, 215, 217, 218,
270, 274, 309, 310, 311, 348, 484, 489, 496, 526, 538, 539, 542, 543, 553, 555, 556, 570, 572, 575,
578, 580, 609, 610, 633, 683, 701, 706, 713, 739, 741, 751, 763, 767, 838, 8, 10, 13
Cumulative Effects ..................................................................................................11, 16, 264, 265, 308, 849
Cumulative Impacts.............................................................................................................................264, 265
D
Days-at-sea (DAS) ..5, 8, 9, 10, 14, 15, 18, 49, 53, 55, 56, 57, 62, 63, 64, 66, 68, 70, 71, 72, 73, 88, 99, 100,
101, 102, 103, 116, 118, 119, 126, 127, 128, 130, 131, 133, 134, 136, 149, 150, 154, 168, 185, 186, 188,
189, 195, 196, 198, 199, 204, 205, 207, 208, 221, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319, 320, 321, 322,
323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 331, 335, 338, 346, 347, 348, 350, 351, 352, 353, 355, 358, 359, 360, 361,
362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369, 370, 375, 379, 470, 471, 472, 474, 475, 476, 477, 478, 479, 480,
483, 511, 512, 513, 514, 516, 520, 522, 523, 524, 527, 534, 542, 543, 545, 546, 547, 548, 549, 550, 551,
562, 566, 567, 569, 570, 571, 573, 574, 575, 591, 593, 594, 596, 597, 600, 601, 602, 603, 608, 609, 610,
611, 612, 613, 617, 618, 621, 622, 623, 624, 625, 632, 678, 681, 682, 683, 685, 686, 687, 690, 691, 692,
696, 697, 698, 699, 700, 701, 702, 710, 712, 715, 717, 718, 720, 721, 722, 723, 724, 729, 733, 734, 738,
739, 743, 744, 745, 749, 752, 753, 755, 757, 758, 759, 760, 761, 762, 763, 764, 765, 767, 768, 769, 772,
773, 774, 775, 778, 781, 782, 783, 784, 785, 786, 787, 788, 790, 791, 792, 793, 794, 795, 796, 838, 839,
840, 846, 847, 858, 859, 860, 885, 886, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16
Category A ....5, 9, 18, 57, 63, 66, 70, 71, 72, 130, 133, 134, 136, 149, 188, 189, 199, 204, 205, 208, 316,
348, 358, 359, 364, 366, 368, 520, 523, 534, 573, 593, 596, 603, 611, 612, 618, 624, 696, 701, 702,
722, 738, 739, 765, 787, 792, 886
Category B 5, 9, 10, 14, 18, 55, 56, 70, 71, 72, 73, 127, 128, 130, 131, 133, 149, 196, 198, 199, 205, 208,
316, 347, 348, 350, 351, 353, 355, 366, 514, 516, 520, 524, 569, 571, 574, 593, 594, 602, 603, 610,
611, 612, 618, 622, 623, 624, 686, 702, 721, 739, 764, 765, 768, 787, 846, 859, 886
Category C .............................................. 5, 71, 72, 119, 134, 205, 316, 348, 365, 366, 368, 788, 790, 886
E
Economic impacts ...6, 11, 14, 15, 70, 221, 307, 308, 481, 482, 483, 485, 520, 626, 683, 686, 690, 705, 706,
707, 708, 710, 711, 712, 713, 721, 741, 742, 744, 746, 759, 762, 764, 770, 773, 774, 19
Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

902

References
Index
Essential Fish Habitat ..... 11, 13, 49, 53, 61, 62, 68, 94, 95, 97, 177, 178, 184, 254, 264, 270, 298, 312, 330,
481, 509, 516, 542, 583, 605, 606, 607, 608, 609, 610, 611, 612, 613, 614, 617, 618, 619, 620, 621, 622,
623, 624, 625, 628, 842, 844, 847, 858, 875, 879, 883, 887, 892, 895, 897, 9, 20
Exclusive Economic Zone................................... 49, 95, 123, 258, 259, 386, 394, 401, 408, 418, 800, 888, 3
G
Groundfish Assessment Review Meeting
GARM.....49, 75, 77, 79, 80, 81, 82, 85, 125, 131, 173, 195, 274, 277, 278, 279, 280, 281, 282, 283, 284,
285, 286, 287, 288, 289, 290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 310, 386, 394, 435, 436, 442, 443, 444, 460,
461, 488, 496, 497, 499, 524, 528, 529, 539, 541, 542, 555, 563, 564, 570, 571, 573, 582, 606, 760,
766, 858, 877, 889
H
Habitat impacts..............................................................................................................118, 263, 618, 619, 18
Habitat Impacts ......13, 606, 607, 608, 609, 610, 611, 612, 613, 614, 618, 619, 620, 621, 622, 623, 624, 625
Haddock
GB...10, 53, 69, 71, 73, 77, 79, 89, 103, 117, 128, 129, 130, 131, 150, 175, 187, 193, 197, 270, 274, 309,
348, 354, 436, 490, 514, 516, 521, 537, 542, 543, 555, 557, 568, 570, 593, 594, 607, 610, 611, 622,
623, 633, 634, 679, 684, 685, 702, 740, 765, 797
GOM .....69, 79, 85, 131, 138, 139, 168, 175, 214, 215, 217, 218, 270, 274, 395, 397, 399, 400, 490, 496,
521, 533, 534, 538, 539, 543, 555, 570, 579, 580, 594, 607, 609, 611, 623, 633, 683, 704, 706, 713,
739, 741, 765, 769, 776
Halibut...8, 76, 77, 80, 83, 84, 86, 93, 139, 150, 156, 172, 176, 215, 458, 459, 486, 509, 526, 539, 580, 596,
604, 613, 625, 627, 707, 741, 770, 777
I
Incidental Catch TACs .............................. 66, 72, 73, 116, 127, 128, 196, 348, 514, 591, 601, 610, 618, 622
M
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act3, 5, 8, 50, 53, 56, 60, 61, 62, 66, 67, 68, 69,
75, 80, 81, 82, 87, 89, 94, 113, 148, 149, 169, 171, 177, 218, 219, 307, 308, 434, 501, 606, 628, 704,
712, 743, 746, 747, 766, 774, 778, 835, 839, 849, 858
Marine mammals .........................................................................................................................800, 856, 881
O
Ocean pout.............................................................................................................................70, 255, 271, 291
Overfishing Level
OFL .....................................................................................................................................87, 88, 500, 628
P
Plaice, American8, 60, 69, 76, 77, 79, 83, 84, 86, 93, 125, 128, 150, 156, 158, 159, 172, 175, 176, 230, 232,
254, 271, 274, 284, 445, 446, 486, 492, 499, 509, 526, 559, 564, 627, 633, 636, 637, 638, 639, 640, 641,
642, 643, 644, 645, 646, 647, 648, 649, 650, 651, 652, 653, 654, 655, 656, 657, 658, 659, 660, 661, 662,
663, 664, 665, 666, 667, 668, 669, 670, 671, 672, 891, 894, 4
Pollock...8, 76, 77, 81, 83, 84, 86, 93, 128, 150, 156, 158, 159, 172, 176, 256, 271, 274, 289, 308, 348, 353,
357, 401, 402, 404, 406, 407, 408, 464, 486, 499, 509, 520, 526, 564, 627, 633, 636, 637, 638, 639, 640,
641, 642, 643, 644, 645, 646, 647, 648, 649, 650, 651, 652, 653, 654, 655, 656, 657, 658, 659, 660,
661, 662, 663, 664, 665, 666, 667, 668, 669, 670, 671, 672
R
Redfish ..8, 69, 76, 77, 83, 84, 86, 93, 150, 156, 158, 159, 172, 175, 176, 256, 271, 452, 453, 486, 495, 499,
509, 526, 560, 564, 594, 627, 633, 636, 637, 638, 639, 640, 641, 642, 643, 644, 645, 646, 647, 648, 649,
650, 651, 652, 653, 654, 655, 656, 657, 658, 659, 660, 661, 662, 663, 664, 665, 666, 667, 668, 669,
670, 671, 672

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

903

References
Index
S
Social Impact Analysis ..........................................................................................51, 465, 748, 750, 763, 771
Social impacts........................................................................ 15, 481, 746, 749, 761, 763, 765, 766, 770, 774
Special Access Program ..................................................................................................5, 50, 55, 56, 70, 764
Closed Area I Hook Gear Haddock SAP ...... 10, 70, 73, 128, 129, 197, 312, 592, 601, 610, 702, 796, 798
Closed Area II Haddock SAP ................................................................................................................ 128
Status Determination Criteria 6, 69, 75, 94, 171, 485, 486, 554, 582, 599, 606, 619, 626, 627, 713, 765, 774,
791
W
White hake.....................................................................................................69, 168, 256, 261, 271, 288, 564
Windowpane flounder ...................................................................................................69, 167, 175, 204, 257
Winter flounder
GB....6, 81, 85, 127, 150, 196, 271, 338, 448, 493, 496, 525, 542, 553, 555, 570, 572, 574, 610, 701, 739
GOM ........................................... 57, 82, 126, 150, 195, 271, 274, 386, 389, 392, 488, 543, 555, 570, 632
SNE/MA .57, 69, 80, 85, 126, 127, 131, 150, 175, 195, 196, 204, 208, 271, 388, 487, 494, 496, 520, 523,
524, 528, 529, 530, 532, 542, 552, 553, 555, 560, 570, 571, 573, 574, 576, 593, 602, 604, 610, 611,
624, 625, 634, 685, 686, 701, 709, 721, 739, 763, 765, 782,걄783
Witch flounder...............................................................................................81, 257, 271, 283, 447, 493, 559
Wolffish, Atlantic ..76, 77, 81, 94, 95, 177, 216, 271, 486, 501, 539, 561, 581, 583, 596, 599, 604, 607, 613,
620, 625, 627, 628, 707, 714, 741, 766, 770, 774, 777, 781, 786, 791
Y
Yellowtail flounder
CC/GOM.......57, 69, 82, 127, 128, 150, 175, 196, 204, 208, 270, 348, 492, 525, 542, 551, 553, 555, 558,
570, 572, 574, 610, 739, 751
SNE/MA .57, 69, 76, 91, 127, 134, 150, 172, 175, 196, 204, 208, 270, 309, 338, 491, 500, 523, 525, 528,
529, 531, 542, 552, 553, 555, 558, 570, 572, 574, 610, 633, 634, 765, 782

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

904

References
Index

Intentionally Blank

Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 16
October 16, 2009

905

Appendix I
Summary of Past, Present, or Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions

Amendment 16
Northeast Multispecies FMP

I-2

APPENDIX I
The actions summarized in the table below are presented in chronological order, and codes
indicate whether an action relates to the past (P), present (Pr), or reasonably foreseeable future
(RFF). When any of these abbreviations occur together, it indicates that some past actions are
still relevant to the present and/or future. A brief explanation of the rationale for concluding what
effect each action has (or will have) had on each of the VECs is provided in the table and is not
repeated here.

Amendment 16
Northeast Multispecies FMP

I-2

Table I-1. Impacts of Past, Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions on the five VECs. These actions do not include those
which were considered to have little impact on the fishery or actions under consideration in this Amendment.

Action

Prosecution of
the groundfish
fisheries by
foreign fleets in
the area that
would become the
U.S. EEZ (prior to
implementation of
the MSA)
P

Original FMP
implemented in
1977
P

Description

Foreign fishing
pressure peaked in
the 1960s and
slowly declined
until passage of the
MSA in 1974 and
implementation of
the Multispecies
FMP
Established
management of cod,
haddock and
yellowtail via catch
quotas, quota
allocations by
vessel class and
catch limits

Amendment 16
Northeast Multispecies FMP

Impacts on
Endangered and
Other Protected
Species
MULTISPECIES FISHERY-RELATED ACTIONS
Direct High
Potentially Direct
Potentially Direct
Negative
High Negative
High Negative
Foreign fishing
Limited information Limited
depleted many
on discarding, but
information on
groundfish stocks
fishing effort was
protected resources
very high and there
encounters, but
were no gear
fishing effort was
requirements to
very high
reduce bycatch
Impacts on
Regulated
Groundfish Stocks

Direct Positive
Provided slight
effort reductions and
regulatory tools
available to rebuild
and manage stocks

Impacts on Nongroundfish species

Indirect Positive
Reduced directed
fishing effort on
cod, haddock and
yellowtail which
resulted in
discard/bycatch
reductions

I-3

Indirect Positive
Reduced fishing
effort, thus reduced
interactions with
protected species

Impacts on
Habitat –
Including Nonfishing Effects
Potentially Direct
High Negative
Limited
information on
habitat, but fishing
effort was very
high

Indirect Positive
Reduced fishing
effort, thus reduced
gear interactions
with habitat

Impacts on
Human
Communities
Potentially
Indirect Negative
Revenue from
fishing was split
between foreign
and domestic
communities,
rather than just
domestic
communities
Indirect Positive
Increased
probability of long
term sustainability

Action

Interim Plan
(1982)

Multispecies
Plan (1986)
P

Description

Impacts on
Impacts on
Endangered and
Habitat –
Other Protected
Including NonSpecies
fishing Effects
MULTISPECIES FISHERY-RELATED ACTIONS CONTINUED
Implemented GB
Direct Positive
Indirect Positive
Indirect Positive
Indirect Positive
seasonal closed
Reduced directed
Reduced directed
Reduced fishing
Reduced fishing
areas, minimum
fishing effort
fishing effort which effort, thus reduced effort, thus reduced
fish size
resulted in
interactions with
gear interactions
requirements in GB
discard/bycatch
protected species
with habitat
and GOM and
reductions
permit requirements
Revised FMP to
Direct Positive
Indirect Positive
Indirect Positive
Indirect Positive
include pollock,
Reduced directed
Reduced directed
Reduced fishing
Reduced fishing
redfish, winter
fishing effort and
fishing effort which effort, thus reduced effort, thus reduced
flounder, American provided the
resulted in
interactions with
gear interactions
plaice, witch
opportunity to
discard/bycatch
protected species
with habitat
flounder,
manage additional
reductions
windowpane
groundfish species
flounder and white
hake. Allowed
additional minimum
fish size
restrictions,
extended GB
spawning area
closures and a SNE
closure to protect
yellowtail flounder

Amendment 16
Northeast Multispecies FMP

Impacts on
Regulated
Groundfish Stocks

Impacts on Nongroundfish species

I-4

Impacts on
Human
Communities

Indirect Positive
Increased
probability of long
term sustainability

Action

Amendments 14 to the
Multispecies FMP
(1987-1991)

Multispecies
Emergency Action
(1994)

Description

Impacts on
Impacts on
Endangered and
Habitat –
Other Protected
Including NonSpecies
fishing Effects
MULTISPECIES FISHERY-RELATED ACTIONS CONTINUED
Implemented
Direct Positive
Indirect Positive
Indirect Positive
Indirect Positive
closure in SNE/MA Reduced directed
Reduced directed
Reduced fishing
Reduced fishing
to protect
fishing effort and
fishing effort which effort, thus reduced effort, thus reduced
yellowtail, extended provided the
resulted in
interactions with
gear interactions
GB RMA, added
opportunity to
discard/bycatch
protected species
with habitat
minimum mesh size manage additional
reductions
requirements to
groundfish species
SNE, excluded
scallop dredge
vessels from SNE
closure,
incorporated silver
hake, red hake and
ocean pout into the
FMP
Implemented 500-lb Direct Positive
Indirect Positive
Indirect Positive
Indirect Positive
haddock trip limit,
Reduced directed
Reduced directed
Reduced fishing
Reduced fishing
expanded CA II
fishing effort
fishing effort which effort, thus reduced effort, thus reduced
closure time and
resulted in
interactions with
gear interactions
area, prohibited
discard/bycatch
protected species
with habitat
scallop dredge
reductions
vessels from
possessing haddock
from Jan-Jun and
prohibited pairtrawling for
multispecies

Amendment 16
Northeast Multispecies FMP

Impacts on
Regulated
Groundfish Stocks

Impacts on Nongroundfish species

I-5

Impacts on
Human
Communities

Indirect Positive
Increased
probability of long
term sustainability

Action

Amendment 5
to the FMP
(1994)

P, Pr

Emergency
Action (1994)

, Pr

Description

Made the above
Emergency Action
measures
permanent, enacted
a moratorium on
new participants in
the fishery, reduced
DAS for most
vessels by 50%
over a 5-7 year
period,
implemented
mandatory
reporting and
observer
requirements, etc.
Implemented
additional closed
areas, prohibited
scallop vessels from
fishing in the closed
areas, disallowed
any fishery using
mesh smaller than
minimum mesh
requirements,
prohibited retaining
regulated species
with small mesh,
etc.

Amendment 16
Northeast Multispecies FMP

Impacts on
Regulated
Groundfish Stocks

Impacts on
Impacts on
Endangered and
Habitat –
Other Protected
Including NonSpecies
fishing Effects
MULTISPECIES FISHERY-RELATED ACTIONS CONTINUED
Direct High
Indirect Positive
Indirect Positive
Indirect Positive
Reduced directed
Reduced fishing
Reduced fishing
Positive
Reduced directed
fishing effort which effort, thus reduced effort, thus reduced
fishing effort and
resulted in
interactions with
gear interactions
capped the number
discard/bycatch
protected species
with habitat
of participants
reductions
allowed to direct on
the fishery

Direct High
Positive
Reduced directed
fishing effort

Impacts on Nongroundfish species

Indirect Positive
Reduced directed
fishing effort which
resulted in
discard/bycatch
reductions

I-6

Indirect Positive
Reduced fishing
effort, thus reduced
interactions with
protected species

Indirect Positive
Reduced fishing
effort, thus reduced
gear interactions
with habitat

Impacts on
Human
Communities

Mixed
Increased
probability of long
term sustainability
by limiting the
number of
participants in the
directed fishery.
However, there
was a negative
impact for
fishermen and
communities where
participation was
reduced
Mixed
Increased
probability of long
term sustainability
but effort
reductions result in
short term lost
revenues for
fishermen and
communities

Action

Framework 9
(1985)
P, Pr

Amendment 7
to the
Multispecies FMP
(1996)
P, Pr

Description

Impacts on
Impacts on
Endangered and
Habitat –
Other Protected
Including NonSpecies
fishing Effects
MULTISPECIES FISHERY-RELATED ACTIONS CONTINUED
Made the above
Direct High
Indirect Positive
Indirect Positive
Indirect Positive
Emergency Action
Reduced directed
Reduced fishing
Reduced fishing
Positive
measures
Reduced directed
fishing effort which effort, thus reduced effort, thus reduced
permanent
fishing effort
resulted in
interactions with
gear interactions
discard/bycatch
protected species
with habitat
reductions

Accelerated
Amendment 5 DAS
reduction schedule,
implemented
seasonal GOM
closures,
implemented 1,000
lb haddock trip
limit, expanded the
5% bycatch rule,
etc.

Amendment 16
Northeast Multispecies FMP

Impacts on
Regulated
Groundfish Stocks

Direct High
Positive
Reduced directed
fishing effort

Impacts on Nongroundfish species

Indirect Positive
Reduced directed
fishing effort which
resulted in
discard/bycatch
reductions

I-7

Indirect Positive
Reduced fishing
effort, thus reduced
interactions with
protected species

Indirect Positive
Reduced fishing
effort, thus reduced
gear interactions
with habitat

Impacts on
Human
Communities

Mixed
Increased
probability of long
term sustainability
but effort
reductions result in
short term lost
revenues for
fishermen and
communities
Mixed
Increased
probability of long
term sustainability
but effort
reductions result in
short term lost
revenues for
fishermen and
communities

Action

Framework 20
(1997)
P, Pr

Framework 24
(1998)

P, Pr

Framework 25
(1998)
P, Pr

Description

Impacts on
Impacts on
Endangered and
Habitat –
Other Protected
Including NonSpecies
fishing Effects
MULTISPECIES FISHERY-RELATED ACTIONS CONTINUED
Implemented GOM Mixed
Mixed
Indirect Positive
Mixed
cod daily trip limit
Reduced directed
Gillnet restrictions
Although the
Reduced cod daily
of 1,000 lb,
fishing effort but
and reduced effort
haddock daily trip
trip limit would be
increased the
allowed for an
on cod helped
limit increased,
offset by increase
haddock daily trip
increase in haddock reduce
gillnet restrictions
haddock daily
limit to 1,000 lb and landings
discards/bycatch but provide an overall
landing limit
added gillnet effortthis may have been
positive impact
reduction measures
offset by increased
such as net limits
effort on haddock

Implemented an
adjustment to GOM
cod daily trip limit
by requiring vessels
to remain in port
and run their DAS
clock for a cod
overage and
implemented the
DAS carryover
provisions
Implemented GOM
inshore closure
areas, the yearround WGOM
closure, the CLCA
and reduced the
GOM cod daily trip
limit to 700 lb

Amendment 16
Northeast Multispecies FMP

Impacts on
Regulated
Groundfish Stocks

Impacts on Nongroundfish species

Direct Low
Positive
Implemented minor
effort reductions

Indirect Low
Positive
Implemented minor
effort reductions
which resulted in
minor
discard/bycatch
reductions

Indirect Low
Positive
Slightly reduced
fishing effort, thus
reduced
interactions with
protected species

Indirect Low
Positive
Reduced fishing
effort, thus reduced
gear interactions
with habitat

Direct Low
Positive
Implemented effort
reductions via
reduced cod trip
limit and closure
areas

Indirect Low
Positive
Reduced directed
fishing effort which
resulted in
discard/bycatch
reductions

Indirect Positive
Effort controls
result in reduced
interactions with
protected species

Indirect High
Positive
Closure areas and
effort controls
reduce gear
interactions with
habitat

I-8

Impacts on
Human
Communities

Mixed
Reduced revenues
from a smaller cod
daily trip limit
could be offset by
the increased
haddock daily
landing limit but
gillnet effort
reductions also
have negative
eco/soc impacts
Mixed
Vessels must
remain in port with
their clock running
for a cod overage
which has a
negative impact but
vessels may
carryover DAS
from one fishing
year into the next.
Mixed
Increased
probability of long
term sustainability
but short term
negative eco/soc
impacts

Action

Framework 26
(1999)
P, Pr

P, Pr, RFF

Amendment 11
(1998)

Description

Impacts on
Impacts on
Endangered and
Habitat –
Other Protected
Including NonSpecies
fishing Effects
MULTISPECIES FISHERY-RELATED ACTIONS CONTINUED
Expansion of April
Direct Low
Indirect Low
Indirect Positive
Indirect High
GOM inshore
Effort controls
Positive
Positive
Positive
closure area and,
Implemented effort
Reduced directed
result in reduced
Closure areas and
additional seasonal
reductions via
fishing effort which interactions with
effort controls
inshore GOM and
closure areas
resulted in discard
protected species
reduce gear
GB area closures
bycatch reductions
interactions with
habitat
Designated EFH for
all species in the
multispecies FMP
and required
Federal agencies to
consult with NMFS
on actions that may
adversely effect
EFH

Amendment 16
Northeast Multispecies FMP

Impacts on
Regulated
Groundfish Stocks

Indirect Low
Positive
A consultation with
NFMS that leads to
the protection of
multispecies EFH is
beneficial to
multispecies stocks

Impacts on Nongroundfish species

Indirect Low
Positive
A consultation with
NFMS that leads to
the protection of
multispecies EFH is
beneficial to other
stocks that share the
same EFH as
multispecies stocks

I-9

Indirect Low
Positive
Consultation with
NFMS that leads to
the protection of
multispecies EFH
is beneficial to
protected resources
that share a need
for the same
habitat that
multispecies stocks
require

Direct High
Positive
Consultation with
NMFS on activities
that may adversely
effect habitat
provides NMFS the
opportunity to
mitigate or even
prevent EFH
impacts

Impacts on
Human
Communities

Mixed
Increased
probability of long
term sustainability
but short term
negative eco/soc
impacts
Indirect Low
Positive
For instances
where NMFS
consults on
projects impacting
multispecies EFH,
the overall health
of the stocks
should improve
which would lead
to long term
sustainability

Action

Framework 27
(1999)
P, Pr

Interim Rule
(1999)
P

P, Pr, RFF

Amendment 9
(1999)

Description

Established large
GOM rolling
closures, modified
CLCA, decreased
GOM daily trip
limit to 200 lb with
subsequent
reduction to 30 lb,
increased haddock
trip limit to 2,000 lb
and increased
minimum mesh size

Impacts on
Regulated
Groundfish Stocks

Impacts on Nongroundfish species

Impacts on
Impacts on
Endangered and
Habitat –
Other Protected
Including NonSpecies
fishing Effects
MULTISPECIES FISHERY-RELATED ACTIONS CONTINUED
Mixed
Mixed
Mixed
Indirect Positive
Reduced directed
A reduction in
Reduced directed
Reduced directed
fishing effort while
directed effort
effort helps
effort and closed
also allowing the
helped minimize
minimize protected areas help improve
haddock trip limit to bycatch and
species encounters habitat, this may be
increase
discards but
but this was
slightly offset by
increased haddock
somewhat offset
the increased
trip limit was
by the increased
haddock trip limit
somewhat offsetting haddock trip limit

Revised GOM cod
trip limit to 100
lb/day up to 500 lb
max and revised the
DAS running clock
to allow a 1-day
overage only

Direct Positive
Reduced directed
fishing effort

Indirect Positive
Reduced directed
fishing effort which
resulted in
discard/bycatch
reductions

Indirect Low
Positive Effort
controls result in
reduced
interactions with
protected species

Indirect Low
Positive Effort
controls result in
reduced habitat
interactions

Prohibited used of
brush sweep trawl
gear, added halibut
to the FMP with a
1-fish per trip
possession limit

Direct Positive
Reduced directed
fishing effort

Indirect Positive
Reduced directed
fishing effort which
resulted in
discard/bycatch
reductions

Indirect Low
Positive Effort
controls result in
reduced
interactions with
protected species

Indirect High
Positive Effort
controls result in
reduced habitat
interactions

Amendment 16
Northeast Multispecies FMP

I-10

Impacts on
Human
Communities

Mixed
Short term negative
from closed areas
and the reduced
cod trip limit which
were not offset by
the increased
haddock trip limit.
Long term positive
because of
increased
probability of
sustainable stocks
Mixed
Increased
probability of long
term sustainability
but short term
negative eco/soc
impacts
Mixed
Increased
probability of long
term sustainability
but short term
negative eco/soc
impacts

Action

Framework 31
(2000)
P, Pr

Framework 33
(2000)
P, Pr

Description

Impacts on
Impacts on
Endangered and
Habitat –
Other Protected
Including NonSpecies
fishing Effects
MULTISPECIES FISHERY-RELATED ACTIONS CONTINUED
Increased GOM
Mixed
Mixed
Mixed
Indirect Low
Daily limit to 400
Increased cod
Increased effort on
Increased cod
Positive
lb/day up to
directed fishing
cod could lead to
effort could
Minor positive
4,000/lb per trip,
effort while also
greater
increase
impacts from
added Feb GOM
reducing effort via
discards/bycatch
interactions but
inshore closure
inshore closure and closure area and cod which would be
somewhat offset
area
extended 1999
running clock
somewhat offset by by effort
Interim Rule
measure
effort reductions via reductions via
running clock
closure area and cod closure area and
measure
running clock
cod running clock
measure
measure
Added GB seasonal Mixed
Mixed
Mixed
Indirect Low
closure area, added
Increased haddock
Increased effort on
Increased haddock Positive
conditional GOM
directed fishing
haddock could lead
effort could
Minor positive
closure areas and
effort while also
to greater
increase
impacts from
increase haddock
reducing effort via
discards/bycatch
interactions but
closure areas
trip limit to 3,000 lb closure areas
which would be
somewhat offset
somewhat offset by by effort
effort reductions via reductions via
closure areas
closure areas

Amendment 16
Northeast Multispecies FMP

Impacts on
Regulated
Groundfish Stocks

Impacts on Nongroundfish species

I-11

Impacts on
Human
Communities

Mixed
Short term positive
from increased cod
trip limit but longterm sustainability
of the cod resource
was effected

Mixed
Short term positive
from increased
haddock trip limit
but negative
impacts resulting
from closure areas

Action

Interim
Action
(Settlement
Agreement; 2002)

P, Pr, RFF

Description

Impacts on
Impacts on
Endangered and
Habitat –
Other Protected
Including NonSpecies
fishing Effects
MULTISPECIES FISHERY-RELATED ACTIONS CONTINUED
Restricted DAS use, Direct High
Indirect High
Indirect Positive
Indirect High
modified DAS
Fishing reductions Positive
Positive
Positive
clock for trip
Implemented
Implemented
and expanded
Fishing reductions
vessels, added year- substantial directed
substantial directed
closure areas
and expanded
round closure of
fishing reductions
fishing reductions
reduce protected
closure areas
CLCA, expanded
which also reduced
species interactions reduce negative
rolling closures,
discards/bycatch
impacts to habitat
prohibited frontloading DAS clock,
increased GOM
trawl and gillnet
mesh size, added
new limitations on
Day gillnets and
further restricted
charter/party
vessels

Amendment 16
Northeast Multispecies FMP

Impacts on
Regulated
Groundfish Stocks

Impacts on Nongroundfish species

I-12

Impacts on
Human
Communities

Mixed
Short term impacts
due to restrictions
were highly
negative but
positive regarding
the long term
sustainability of the
fishery

Action

Interim
Action
(Settlement
Agreement
Continued; 2002)

P, Pr, RFF

Description

Impacts on
Impacts on
Endangered and
Habitat –
Other Protected
Including NonSpecies
fishing Effects
MULTISPECIES FISHERY-RELATED ACTIONS CONTINUED
Continued above
Direct High
Indirect High
Indirect Positive
Indirect Positive
interim measures,
Fishing reductions Fishing reductions
Positive
Positive
further reduced
Implemented
Implemented
reduce protected
reduce negative
DAS allocations,
substantial directed
substantial directed
species interactions impacts to habitat
prohibited issuance fishing reductions
fishing reductions
of additional
which also reduced
handgear permits,
discards/bycatch
eliminated GOM
Jan and Feb
closures, increased
SNE trawl and
GB/SNE gillnet
mesh sizes, further
limited day and trip
gillnets, added
longline gear
restrictions, added
possession limit and
restrictions on
yellowtail catch and
increased GOM cod
daily trip limit to
500/4,000 lb max

Amendment 16
Northeast Multispecies FMP

Impacts on
Regulated
Groundfish Stocks

Impacts on Nongroundfish species

I-13

Impacts on
Human
Communities

Mixed
Short term impacts
due to restrictions
were highly
negative but
improving the long
term sustainability
of the fishery was
positive

Action

P, Pr, RFF

Amendment 13
(2004)

P, Pr, RFF

Framework 40A
(2004)

Description

Impacts on
Impacts on
Endangered and
Habitat –
Other Protected
Including NonSpecies
fishing Effects
MULTISPECIES FISHERY-RELATED ACTIONS CONTINUED
Adopted new
Direct High
Mixed
Indirect Positive
Indirect Positive
rebuilding periods
Implemented
Fishing reductions Fishing reductions
Positive
and a new
Implemented
substantial directed
reduce protected
reduce negative
rebuilding program substantial directed
fishing reductions
species interactions impacts to habitat
that included
fishing reductions
which also reduced
periodic
discards/bycatch.
adjustments and
However, the mores
default DAS
stringent restrictions
reductions to reduce
created pressure to
effort over time,
direct on other
allowed DAS to be
stocks (e.g.,
leased or
monkfish)
transferred, created
sector allocation
and special access
programs to allow
access to stocks that
can support an
increase in catch
Created additional
Direct Positive
Indirect Negative
Negligible
Negligible
SAPs to target
Directing effort
Increased bycatch
Although effort
Although effort
healthy stocks
toward healthy
of monkfish and
increased slightly,
increased slightly,
stocks relieved
skates
no effort shifts
no effort shifts
pressure on stocks
impacting
impacting habitat
of concern
protected species
are known to have
are known to have
occurred
occurred

Amendment 16
Northeast Multispecies FMP

Impacts on
Regulated
Groundfish Stocks

Impacts on Nongroundfish species

I-14

Impacts on
Human
Communities

Mixed
Short term impacts
due to restrictions
were highly
negative but
improving the long
term sustainability
of the fishery was
positive

Indirect Positive
Provided vessels
the opportunity for
greater revenue
while relieving
pressure on stocks
of concern

Action

P, Pr, RFF

Framework 40B
(2005)

P, Pr, RFF

Framework 41
(2005)

Description

Impacts on
Impacts on
Endangered and
Habitat –
Other Protected
Including NonSpecies
fishing Effects
MULTISPECIES FISHERY-RELATED ACTIONS CONTINUED
Relaxed DAS
Negligible
Indirect Low
Negligible
Negligible
leasing and transfer Mix of alternatives,
Slight effort
Slight effort
Negative
requirements,
some of which
Mix of alternatives
changes did not
changes did not
created new
slightly increased
that primarily had
have measurable
have measurable
yellowtail flounder
effort and others
little impact on
impacts to
impacts to habitat
SAP, provided
that slightly
discards/bycatch
protected species
greater opportunity
decreased effort.
with the exception
for vessels to
Overall, changes did of removing the net
participate in the
not threaten
trip limit for gillnets
GB Cod Hook
rebuilding targets
which increased
Sector, removed the established by
monkfish effort
net trip limit for
Amendment 13
gillnets, etc.
Allowed for
Direct Low
Indirect Low
Negligible
Negligible
participation in the
Slight effort
Slight effort
Positive
Negative
Hook Gear
Encouraged effort
Although directed
changes did not
changes did not
Haddock SAP by
on haddock, a
effort shifted to a
have measurable
have measurable
non-Sector vessels
healthy stock, and
healthier stock,
impacts to
impacts to habitat
thus away from
there was an overall protected species
other stocks of
effort increase
concern
resulting in a greater
opportunity for
bycatch/discards

Amendment 16
Northeast Multispecies FMP

Impacts on
Regulated
Groundfish Stocks

Impacts on Nongroundfish species

I-15

Impacts on
Human
Communities

Indirect Low
Positive
Slight changes to
the leasing and
transfer programs
along with greater
opportunities to
participate in SAPs
provides an
opportunity for
greater revenue

Indirect Low
Positive
Greater opportunity
to fish for a healthy
stock provides
increased revenue

Action

Emergency
Action (2006)
P

P, Pr, RFF

Framework 42
(2006)

Description

Impacts on
Regulated
Groundfish Stocks

Impacts on Nongroundfish species

Implemented
differential A DAS
of 1.4:1, restricted
the B Regular DAS
program and
US/CA Haddock
SAP and reduced
trip limits on cod,
yellowtail, etc.

Impacts on
Endangered and
Other Protected
Species
Negligible
Effort changes did
not have
measurable
impacts to
protected species

Impacts on
Habitat –
Including Nonfishing Effects
Negligible
Effort changes did
not have more than
minimal impacts to
habitat

Direct High
Mixed
Effort reductions
Positive
Implemented effort
lead to reduced
reductions that
discards/bycatch but
anticipated
the B Regular DAS
achieving mortality
program increased
reductions needed to monkfish and skate
keep stocks on track bycatch
to rebuild
MULTISPECIES FISHERY-RELATED ACTIONS CONTINUED
Reduced the
Direct High
Indirect Positive
Indirect Low
Indirect Low
number of A DAS
Effort reductions
Positive
Positive
Positive
available, modified
Implemented effort
lead to reduced
Overall effort
Overall effort
differential DAS
reductions that
discards/bycatch
reductions have a
reductions have a
counting to 2:1 in
anticipated
and measures were
positive impact,
positive impact
the GOM and SNE, achieving mortality
implemented to
particularly to
reduced trip limits
reductions needed to control monkfish
protected species
for several stocks,
keep stocks on track and skate bycatch
in high use areas
increased
to rebuild
such as the GOM
recreations
and SNE where
minimum fish sizes,
strict differential
required use of
counting rules are
VMS by all vessels,
in effect
modified the SAPs,
limited the bycatch
of monkfish and
skates for vessels
using a haddock
separator trawl, etc.

Amendment 16
Northeast Multispecies FMP

I-16

Impacts on
Human
Communities
Mix
Short term effort
reductions have a
negative impact on
revenues but
increase long term
sustainability of
stocks

Mixed
Effort reductions
have a significant
negative impact to
vessel owners and
communities,
primarily due to
loss of revenues.
Over the long term
however, stocks
should remain
sustainable

Action

P, Pr, RFF

Framework 43
(2006)

Framework 44
(2010)

RFF

Description

Impacts on
Impacts on
Endangered and
Habitat –
Other Protected
Including NonSpecies
fishing Effects
MULTISPECIES FISHERY-RELATED ACTIONS CONTINUED
Established a
Mixed
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
haddock incidental
While the incidental The herring fishery
Although attaining Gear used to target
bycatch limit in the haddock allowance
is fairly clean and
the bycatch cap
herring have been
herring fishery on
allows some legal
the increased
could reduce effort found not to have
GB
catch of haddock
haddock bycatch
on GB, the extent
an impact on
which has a
problem arose from of this reduction
habitat
negative impact, the strong 2003 and
was not expected
area is closed after
2004 year classes.
to have an overall
the bycatch cap is
Allowing legal
impact on
reached which
retention of
protected species
prohibits further
haddock bycatch
harvest (positive
should not alter
impact)
fishing practices in
a manner that would
impact species
taken as bycatch
Would set ACLs,
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
establish TACs for
Analysis is not
Analysis is not
Analysis is not
Analysis is not
transboundary
complete however,
complete however,
complete however, complete however,
U.S./CA stocks, and positive impacts are positive impacts are positive impacts
positive impacts
possibly make
likely as effort
likely as effort
are likely as effort
are likely as effort
adjustments to trip
would be further
would be further
would be further
would be further
limits/DAS
managed for
managed for
managed for
managed for
measures
sustainability
sustainability
sustainability thus
sustainability thus
potentially
potentially
reducing
reducing effort and
opportunities for
gear impacts
interactions with
protected species

Amendment 16
Northeast Multispecies FMP

Impacts on
Regulated
Groundfish Stocks

Impacts on Nongroundfish species

I-17

Impacts on
Human
Communities

Mixed
Allowing herring
vessels to continue
fishing practices on
GB has a positive
impact on those
vessels and
communities.
However, the loss
of the potential
haddock catch has
a negative impact
on fishermen
targeting
groundfish
Negative
Analysis is not
complete however,
negative short-term
impacts are likely
as any further
effort reductions
would further
reduce revenues

Action

RFF

Sector EAs
(2010)

Atlantic
Sea Scallop FMP
– a series of
amendment and
framework actions
from the mid1990s through the
present
P, Pr, RFF

Description

Impacts on
Impacts on
Endangered and
Habitat –
Other Protected
Including NonSpecies
fishing Effects
MULTISPECIES FISHERY-RELATED ACTIONS CONTINUED
Sector EAs would
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
be prepared for
Because exemptions Because exemptions Because
Because
each sector
granted to sectors
granted to sectors
exemptions
exemptions granted
approved under this must strive to have
must strive to have
granted to sectors
to sectors must
Amendment. These neutral impacts
neutral impacts
must strive to have strive to have
documents would
compared to
compared to
neutral impacts
neutral impacts
assess impacts from common pool
common pool
compared to
compared to
exemptions granted vessels, impacts
vessels, impacts
common pool
common pool
to individual sectors would be negligible would be negligible vessels, impacts
vessels, impacts
that go beyond the
would be
would be
universal
negligible
negligible
exemptions
OTHER FISHERY-RELATED ACTIONS
Implementation of
Direct Positive
Indirect Positive
Mixed
Indirect Positive
the Atlantic Sea
Effort reductions
Effort reductions
Effort reductions
Effort reductions
Scallop FMP and
taken over time
taken over time also taken over time
reduced gear
continued
have resulted in a
reduced bycatch,
reduced
contact with habitat
management of the
sustainable scallop
including gear
interactions with
and the current
fishery, primarily
fishery
modifications that
protected species
rotational access
through effort
improved bycatch
however, turtle
program focuses
controls
escapement
interactions remain fishing effort on
problematic
sandy substrates
which are less
susceptible to
habitat impacts

Amendment 16
Northeast Multispecies FMP

Impacts on
Regulated
Groundfish Stocks

Impacts on Nongroundfish species

I-18

Impacts on
Human
Communities

Low Positive
Because one of the
intents of sectors is
to provide
participants greater
freedom to
maximize their
operations,
revenues would be
expected to be
slightly higher

Indirect Positive
Initial negative
impacts due to
effort reductions
have been
supplanted by a
sustainable,
profitable fishery

Action

Description

Monkfish
FMP – a series of
amendment and
framework actions
from
implementation of
the FMP in 1999
through the
present

Implementation of
the monkfish FMP
and continued
management of the
fishery, primarily
through effort
controls

P, Pr, RFF

Large
Whale Take
Reduction Plan
Amendment
(2008)

Pr, RFF

Removed the DAM
program, will
implement sinking
ground lines for
lobster gear,
includes more
trap/pot and gillnet
fisheries under the
protection plan and
requires additional
markings on gear to
improve
information
regarding where
and how
entanglements
occur

Amendment 16
Northeast Multispecies FMP

Impacts on
Regulated
Groundfish Stocks

Impacts on
Endangered and
Other Protected
Species
OTHER FISHERY-RELATED ACTIONS CONTINUED
Direct Positive
Indirect Positive
Indirect Positive
Effort reductions
Effort reductions
Reducing effort
have resulted in a
taken over time also reduced
fishery that is no
reduced bycatch
opportunities for
longer overfished,
interactions with
nor is overfishing
protected species
occurring

Negligible
Changes
implemented
through the
amendment are not
expected to have
substantial changes
on groundfish

Impacts on Nongroundfish species

Negligible
Changes
implemented
through the
amendment are not
expected to have
substantial changes
on non-groundfish
species

I-19

Direct Positive
New regulations
implemented to
protect large
whales are
expected to have a
positive impact on
large whales by
reducing incidental
takes

Impacts on
Habitat –
Including Nonfishing Effects

Impacts on
Human
Communities

Indirect Positive
Reducing effort
reduced
opportunities for
habitat interactions

Indirect Positive
Reducing effort has
created a
sustainable fishery

Negligible
Changes
implemented
through the
amendment are not
expected to have
substantial changes
to habitat

Indirect Negative
Changes
implemented
through the
amendment require
some gear changes
for gillnet fisheries
which have minor
negative economic
impacts

Action

Harbor
Porpoise Take
Reduction Plan
Amendment
(~2010)

RFF

Essential Fish
Habitat Omnibus
Amendment
(~2010/2011)

RFF

Amendment 3
to the Skate FMP
(2010)

RFF

Description

Options are
currently under
development to
reduce takes of
harbor porpoise
toward the longterm zero mortality
rate goal
This amendment
would revised EFH
designations for all
New England
fisheries, possibly
establish new
HAPCs and
consider measures
to further protect
critical habitat
This amendment
would address
rebuilding of winter
and thorny skates
and reduce
mortality on little
and smooth skates

Amendment 16
Northeast Multispecies FMP

Impacts on
Regulated
Groundfish Stocks

Impacts on
Endangered and
Other Protected
Species
OTHER FISHERY-RELATED ACTIONS CONTINUED
Unknown
Unknown
Direct Positive
If current measures
If current measures
Changes to protect
such as closure
such as closure
harbor porpoise
areas and the use of
areas and the use of have a positive
pingers are
pingers are
impact on
expanded upon or
expanded upon or
protected species
modified, it could
modified, it could
impact groundfish
impact nongroundfish species
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
If new measures are If new measures are If new measures
implemented to
implemented to
are implemented to
protect habitat, they protect habitat, they protect habitat,
would likely have a
could have a
they could
positive impact on
positive impact non- potentially impact
groundfish
groundfish species
protected species

Unknown
If actions are taken
to reduce skate
mortality, they
could impact
groundfish

Impacts on Nongroundfish species

Unknown
If actions are taken
to reduce skate
mortality, they
could impact nongroundfish species

I-20

Unknown
If actions are taken
to reduce skate
mortality, they
could impact
protected species

Impacts on
Habitat –
Including Nonfishing Effects

Impacts on
Human
Communities

Unknown
If current measures
such as closure
areas and the use of
pingers are
expanded upon or
modified, it could
impact habitat

Unknown
If current measures
such as closure
areas and the use of
pingers are
expanded upon or
modified, it could
impact human
communities
Unknown
If new measures
are implemented to
protect habitat,
they would likely
impact human
communities

Direct Positive
New measures
implemented to
protect habitat
would have a
positive impact on
habitat

Unknown
If actions are taken
to reduce skate
mortality, they
could impact
habitat

Unknown
If actions are taken
to reduce skate
mortality, they
could impact
human
communities

Action

P, Pr, RFFA

Description

Nutrients applied to
agriculture land are
introduced into
aquatic systems

Agriculture runoff

Port
maintenance

P, Pr, RFFA

Impacts on
Regulated
Groundfish Stocks

Impacts on Nongroundfish species

Impacts on
Endangered and
Other Protected
Species
NON FISHERY-RELATED ACTIONS
Indirect Negative
Indirect Negative
Direct Negative
Reduced habitat
Reduced habitat
Reduced habitat
quality in the
quality in the
quality in the
immediate project
immediate project
immediate project
area
area
area

Impacts on
Habitat –
Including Nonfishing Effects

Impacts on
Human
Communities

Indirect Negative
Reduced habitat
quality in the
immediate project
area

Indirect Negative
Reduced habitat
quality negatively
affects resource
viability and can
lead to reduced
income from
fishery resources
Indirect Negative
Reduced habitat
quality negatively
affects resource
viability in the
immediate project
area
Indirect Negative
Reduced habitat
quality negatively
affects resource
viability in the
immediate project
area

Dredging of
wetlands, coastal,
port and harbor
areas for port
maintenance

Indirect Negative
Localized decreases
in habitat quality

Direct Negative
Reduced habitat
quality in the
immediate project
area

Indirect Negative
Localized
decreases in habitat
quality in the
immediate project
area

Disposal of dredged
materials

Indirect Negative
Localized decreases
in habitat quality in
the immediate
project area

Direct Negative
Reduced habitat
quality in the
immediate project
area

Indirect Negative
Localized
decreases in habitat
quality in the
immediate project
area

Offshore
disposal of
dredged materials

P, Pr, RFFA

Amendment 16
Northeast Multispecies FMP

I-21

Action

Description

Offshore mining of
sand for beaches

Beach
nourishment

Impacts on
Regulated
Groundfish Stocks

Impacts on Nongroundfish species

Impacts on
Endangered and
Other Protected
Species
NON FISHERY-RELATED ACTIONS CONTINUED
Indirect Negative
Indirect Negative
Direct Negative
Localized decreases Localized decreases Reduced habitat
in habitat quality in
in habitat quality in
quality in the
the immediate
the immediate
immediate project
project area
project area
area

P, Pr, RFFA

Placement of sand
to nourish beach
shorelines

Indirect Negative
Localized decreases
in habitat quality in
the immediate
project area

Direct Negative
Reduced habitat
quality in the
immediate project
area

P, Pr, RFFA

Expansion of port
facilities, vessel
operations and
recreational marinas

Indirect Negative
Localized decreases
in habitat quality in
the immediate
project area

Direct Negative
Reduced habitat
quality in the
immediate project
area

P, Pr, RFFA

Transportation of
oil, gas and energy
through pipelines,
utility lines and
cables

Indirect Negative
Initially localized
decreases in habitat
quality in the
immediate project
area

Indirect Negative
Initially localized
decreases in
habitat quality in
the immediate
project area

Marine
transportation

Installation of
pipelines, utility
lines and cables

Amendment 16
Northeast Multispecies FMP

I-22

Impacts on
Habitat –
Including Nonfishing Effects

Impacts on
Human
Communities

Indirect Negative
Localized
decreases in habitat
quality in the
immediate project
area
Indirect Negative
Localized
decreases in habitat
quality in the
immediate project
area
Indirect Negative
Localized
decreases in habitat
quality in the
immediate project
area
Potentially Direct
Negative
Initially reduced
habitat quality in
the immediate
project area

Mixed
Positive for mining
companies,
possibly negative
for fisheries
Positive
Improves beaches
and can help
protect homes
along the shore line
Mixed
Positive for some
interests, potential
displacement for
others
Mixed
End users benefit
from improved
pipelines, cables,
etc., but reduced
habitat quality may
impact fisheries
and revenues

Action

Liquefied
Natural Gas
(LNG) terminals
(w/in 5 years)

Pr, RFFA

Offshore
Wind Energy
Facilities
(w/in 5 years)

RFFA

Description

Transportation of
natural gas via
tanker to terminals
located offshore and
onshore (Several
LNG terminals are
proposed, including
ME, MA, NY, NJ
and MD)
Construction of
wind turbines to
harness electrical
power (Several
facilities proposed
from ME through
NC, including off
the coast of MA)

Amendment 16
Northeast Multispecies FMP

Impacts on
Regulated
Groundfish Stocks

Impacts on
Endangered and
Other Protected
Species
NON FISHERY-RELATED ACTIONS CONTINUED
Indirect Negative
Indirect Negative
Indirect Negative
Initially localized
Initially localized
Initially localized
decreases in habitat
decreases in habitat decreases in
quality in the
quality in the
habitat quality in
immediate project
immediate project
the immediate
area
area
project area

Indirect Negative
Initially localized
decreases in habitat
quality in the
immediate project
area

Impacts on Nongroundfish species

Indirect Negative
Initially localized
decreases in habitat
quality in the
immediate project
area

I-23

Potentially Direct
Negative
Localized
decreases in
habitat quality
possible in the
immediate project
area

Impacts on
Habitat –
Including Nonfishing Effects

Impacts on
Human
Communities

Potentially Direct
Negative
Localized
decreases in habitat
quality possible in
the immediate
project area

Mixed
End users benefit
from a steady
supply of natural
gas but reduced
habitat quality may
impact fisheries
and revenues

Potentially Direct
Negative
Localized
decreases in habitat
quality possible in
the immediate
project area

Mixed
End users benefit
from a clean
energy production
but reduced habitat
quality may impact
fisheries and
revenues

File Type	application/pdf
Author	Tom Nies
File Modified	2009-10-16
File Created	2009-10-16